Yes, it is "core to the service" as it is how the service is paid for. Come back to the real world where people get paid to work and run services or start running your own that you pay for via some other mechanism than selling ads.
Actually, Amazon is not really the one telling you that. Amazon may have forwarded something from the actual content producer and/or the Federal government and you may or may not find what Amazon forwarded interesting, useful or worth remembering.
Yup, the countries that traditionally have the afternoon siesta and the countries that mandate by law long vacations have such awesomely low unemployment rates... As always, never let current facts get in the way of a good argument.
Why go to all that bother to notify people "where a gun (not specific gun) is at any particular time"? In the US they are pretty much everywhere all the time. That is the number one proof that the ubiquitousness of guns does not even correlate well with crime let alone cause crime.
Exactly. Because there are so many more polar bears now that we don't hunt them as much people might be inclined to allow more hunting of them and then their numbers will decline at which point hunting will be limited and their numbers will rise. Once the decline begins, the AGW crowd will use that as proof of their correctness. Once the rise begins, they will use the fact that they predict it will decline as proof of their correctness.
That's rich. You seem to be making a claim that global warming deniers like to use an argument that requires the earth to be a static system when the reality is that the earth is not and has never been static and nobody cared until one day some scientists declared that the climate was not supposed to be changing but it is changing so it must be the fault of humans. It seems that the climate change crowd is the one demanding "an unchanging world."
Having worked for a few retailers and knowing others who do and also who own retail outlets. I can assure you that the individual retailers are not tracking who gave them what bill. So you get a bill from the bank and The Retail Store gives it back to a bank. Did you give it to The Retail Store? Or did you give it to The Sandwich Shop who gave it to Joe who gave it to Sue who gave it to The Gas Station who gave it to Fred who gave it to the Retail Store?
Only a seriously delusional nitwit would believe that the second chain is at all traceable.
and all it takes is robbing someone at gunpoint. Isn't that such a wonderful idea?
We already have 10% of the people making 40% of the income and paying 60%+ of the taxes. Additionally, we have 49% paying no taxes. How much more do you require of the top end before you have achieved "fairness?"
Back in the '80s, I talked with a few people who had either lived in East Germany or Poland or who had relatives living there. They described exactly the situation that the AC responding to digitalsolo described. They saw society breaking down because it took no more than three generations for nearly everyone (basically those not working in high end physics or the secret police) to lose any desire to actually work. They had basically two reasons. 1) Why bother working when I don't get paid anymore than the guy down the street who doesn't and 2) it wouldn't matter if I got paid more because there isn't anything to buy anyway.
Another prevalent attitude was that what we would consider theft was considered normal. People would walk into a store and simply walk out with stuff. When questioned, their response was "Why should I pay have to pay for it? We all own everything equally."
"Except, in doing so, you've just tripled the price of a Big Mac"
So, you're claiming that a government regulation that significantly raises the costs of doing business (to a point above its current break-even point) might actually result in that business demanding more money for its product? And that that event might itself be used as input to a feedback loop?
And people wonder why we complain about overregulation and such. Really? Who would have ever thought that the taxi company with the most taxis would get the most business.
Next, you'll be complaining that the restaurant making the most food sells the most food.
I never said it requires Facebook. I said that is what many of us are doing on Facebook. People have been doing that since communication was invented. People have been doing it long-distance since written communication was invented. I used to do it via snail-mail and phone calls and the occasional trip back home. I use email to do it. I also use Facebook. It is convenient because of what it is.
And that is your experience and your right. Millions of others disagree with you. I know, I know. We are all wrong and dumbshits for disagreeing with you but nevertheless...
"Facebook has changed our definition of 'friend' to include people you barely know, or don't know at all. Which sounds cool if you're a teenager, but pretty much makes no sense anyway." It has changed some people's definition, maybe even mine to some extent. I only friend people I actually know. That is an option. Nobody is forced to accept every friend request that comes through the door.
"While you might feel I'm not getting everything out of Facebook, I'm getting everything I want, and controlling who that includes. And that doesn't include the kid who sat next to me in grammar school and ate paste, the girl I went out with in highschool, or someone I met in an airport a bunch of years ago and have forgotten." I don't care whether you get anything out of Facebook. I believe you should get everything out of any social media that you expect to and nothing more, nothing less. Obviously different people have different expectations.
"If what you want it for anybody to be able to track you down and know every detail of your life... that's your problem. Expecting the rest of the world to play along just so you can look up someone you've not seen in decades is just stupid." It isn't my problem. You seem to be the one having the problem. I was simply explaining that the purpose of the site as I understand it is to allow that to happen. That is most easily facilitated by not using pseudonyms. I don't expect anybody to play along. I enjoy when some do and get annoyed when others do. I have looked up people I went to school with but haven't seen for a long time. I have requested some as "friends". Others have done the same back to me. Everybody has different experiences and different perspectives.
I'm sorry your experiences have led you to a point where you seem to believe that everyone who does not share your belief system is ignorant, mentally challenged, stupid or whatever other adjectives along those lines you want to use.
Do you really not understand that the primary purpose (or draw) of Facebook from the user's standpoint is to connect with real people that you actually know in real life but maybe don't see every day. You can connect with people you went to High School with and are still interested somewhat in what they are doing. You can connect with parents, children, grandchildren, cousins, etc. Facebook is really a huge microblogging site. All of that really only works well when people use their real names. I am fine if you choose not to participate for whatever reason you choose. I'm just pointing out that the only way to achieve what people are getting out of Facebook is to have people not be anonymous. Some will say that you should be able to choose to hide your real name from everyone except those you allow to be "friends". The problem with that is that you won't be able to find your friends without linking their real name to their pseudonyms.
Labor is still the largest expense of the car. Well, previous labor is more accurate.
GM's biggest problem is that they are actually paying more for retired union employees than for those working on the line. At one point, more than half the MSRP of a car was funding pensions and retiree health care.
Paying someone $90,000 a year to install windshields also adds up pretty fast.
Seriously dude? Have you not figured out that the average slashdotter has never heard of Econ 101 and if they have, they simply blather on about it being yet another method of mind control employed by "the rich" to keep "the little guy" down.
Seriously. The town I live in is full of people who could do more with their lives but have chosen to wait for the paper mills to reopen so they can have all the high paying jobs watching the dial so they can push the STOP button should the 3 levels of automation fail. Or they just hang out getting paid to do nothing.
The main problem is that there is way too much incentive to not better one's self.
How about the privacy of the physical representation of themselves. The employer needs no record of what an employee looks like. The employer should just blindly accept the word of the employee that the employee came to work.
It is actually a point of negotiation between the employee and the company. Some employees choose to hire a representative to do that negotiation and pays a one time fee for that negotiation. Others do it themselves. Others turn the negotiation over to someone they have never met that claims to have the employee's best interest at heart and only asks for a "small" cut of the employees earnings for the rest of the employees life.
Why do you say that only the last option is valid?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it is "core to the service" as it is how the service is paid for. Come back to the real world where people get paid to work and run services or start running your own that you pay for via some other mechanism than selling ads.
Actually, Amazon is not really the one telling you that. Amazon may have forwarded something from the actual content producer and/or the Federal government and you may or may not find what Amazon forwarded interesting, useful or worth remembering.
Yup, the countries that traditionally have the afternoon siesta and the countries that mandate by law long vacations have such awesomely low unemployment rates... As always, never let current facts get in the way of a good argument.
Why go to all that bother to notify people "where a gun (not specific gun) is at any particular time"? In the US they are pretty much everywhere all the time. That is the number one proof that the ubiquitousness of guns does not even correlate well with crime let alone cause crime.
"The Sahara used to be a lush and fertile plain." When was this and why would it be bad for it to be that way again?
Exactly. Because there are so many more polar bears now that we don't hunt them as much people might be inclined to allow more hunting of them and then their numbers will decline at which point hunting will be limited and their numbers will rise. Once the decline begins, the AGW crowd will use that as proof of their correctness. Once the rise begins, they will use the fact that they predict it will decline as proof of their correctness.
That's rich. You seem to be making a claim that global warming deniers like to use an argument that requires the earth to be a static system when the reality is that the earth is not and has never been static and nobody cared until one day some scientists declared that the climate was not supposed to be changing but it is changing so it must be the fault of humans. It seems that the climate change crowd is the one demanding "an unchanging world."
Having worked for a few retailers and knowing others who do and also who own retail outlets. I can assure you that the individual retailers are not tracking who gave them what bill. So you get a bill from the bank and The Retail Store gives it back to a bank. Did you give it to The Retail Store? Or did you give it to The Sandwich Shop who gave it to Joe who gave it to Sue who gave it to The Gas Station who gave it to Fred who gave it to the Retail Store?
Only a seriously delusional nitwit would believe that the second chain is at all traceable.
Of course they're right. Chicago, Milwaukee, New York, Detriot, etc. are perfect examples of that.
and all it takes is robbing someone at gunpoint. Isn't that such a wonderful idea?
We already have 10% of the people making 40% of the income and paying 60%+ of the taxes. Additionally, we have 49% paying no taxes. How much more do you require of the top end before you have achieved "fairness?"
Back in the '80s, I talked with a few people who had either lived in East Germany or Poland or who had relatives living there. They described exactly the situation that the AC responding to digitalsolo described. They saw society breaking down because it took no more than three generations for nearly everyone (basically those not working in high end physics or the secret police) to lose any desire to actually work. They had basically two reasons. 1) Why bother working when I don't get paid anymore than the guy down the street who doesn't and 2) it wouldn't matter if I got paid more because there isn't anything to buy anyway.
Another prevalent attitude was that what we would consider theft was considered normal. People would walk into a store and simply walk out with stuff. When questioned, their response was "Why should I pay have to pay for it? We all own everything equally."
"Except, in doing so, you've just tripled the price of a Big Mac"
So, you're claiming that a government regulation that significantly raises the costs of doing business (to a point above its current break-even point) might actually result in that business demanding more money for its product? And that that event might itself be used as input to a feedback loop?
You have basically just described one of the reasons why the US debt is at the level it is.
Because everybody may have actually figured out by now that TMI was a non-event.
And people wonder why we complain about overregulation and such. Really? Who would have ever thought that the taxi company with the most taxis would get the most business.
Next, you'll be complaining that the restaurant making the most food sells the most food.
If my social skills ever develop to the point that I feel like organizing something that large, I may use Facebook as one avenue among others.
I never said it requires Facebook. I said that is what many of us are doing on Facebook. People have been doing that since communication was invented. People have been doing it long-distance since written communication was invented. I used to do it via snail-mail and phone calls and the occasional trip back home. I use email to do it. I also use Facebook. It is convenient because of what it is.
And that is your experience and your right. Millions of others disagree with you. I know, I know. We are all wrong and dumbshits for disagreeing with you but nevertheless...
"Facebook has changed our definition of 'friend' to include people you barely know, or don't know at all. Which sounds cool if you're a teenager, but pretty much makes no sense anyway." It has changed some people's definition, maybe even mine to some extent. I only friend people I actually know. That is an option. Nobody is forced to accept every friend request that comes through the door.
"While you might feel I'm not getting everything out of Facebook, I'm getting everything I want, and controlling who that includes. And that doesn't include the kid who sat next to me in grammar school and ate paste, the girl I went out with in highschool, or someone I met in an airport a bunch of years ago and have forgotten." I don't care whether you get anything out of Facebook. I believe you should get everything out of any social media that you expect to and nothing more, nothing less. Obviously different people have different expectations.
"If what you want it for anybody to be able to track you down and know every detail of your life ... that's your problem. Expecting the rest of the world to play along just so you can look up someone you've not seen in decades is just stupid." It isn't my problem. You seem to be the one having the problem. I was simply explaining that the purpose of the site as I understand it is to allow that to happen. That is most easily facilitated by not using pseudonyms. I don't expect anybody to play along. I enjoy when some do and get annoyed when others do. I have looked up people I went to school with but haven't seen for a long time. I have requested some as "friends". Others have done the same back to me. Everybody has different experiences and different perspectives.
I'm sorry your experiences have led you to a point where you seem to believe that everyone who does not share your belief system is ignorant, mentally challenged, stupid or whatever other adjectives along those lines you want to use.
and yet another shocker... crazy people and criminals can buy guns in every country in the world.
Do you really not understand that the primary purpose (or draw) of Facebook from the user's standpoint is to connect with real people that you actually know in real life but maybe don't see every day. You can connect with people you went to High School with and are still interested somewhat in what they are doing. You can connect with parents, children, grandchildren, cousins, etc. Facebook is really a huge microblogging site. All of that really only works well when people use their real names. I am fine if you choose not to participate for whatever reason you choose. I'm just pointing out that the only way to achieve what people are getting out of Facebook is to have people not be anonymous. Some will say that you should be able to choose to hide your real name from everyone except those you allow to be "friends". The problem with that is that you won't be able to find your friends without linking their real name to their pseudonyms.
Labor is still the largest expense of the car. Well, previous labor is more accurate.
GM's biggest problem is that they are actually paying more for retired union employees than for those working on the line. At one point, more than half the MSRP of a car was funding pensions and retiree health care.
Paying someone $90,000 a year to install windshields also adds up pretty fast.
Seriously dude? Have you not figured out that the average slashdotter has never heard of Econ 101 and if they have, they simply blather on about it being yet another method of mind control employed by "the rich" to keep "the little guy" down.
Seriously. The town I live in is full of people who could do more with their lives but have chosen to wait for the paper mills to reopen so they can have all the high paying jobs watching the dial so they can push the STOP button should the 3 levels of automation fail. Or they just hang out getting paid to do nothing.
The main problem is that there is way too much incentive to not better one's self.
How about the privacy of the physical representation of themselves. The employer needs no record of what an employee looks like. The employer should just blindly accept the word of the employee that the employee came to work.
It is actually a point of negotiation between the employee and the company. Some employees choose to hire a representative to do that negotiation and pays a one time fee for that negotiation. Others do it themselves. Others turn the negotiation over to someone they have never met that claims to have the employee's best interest at heart and only asks for a "small" cut of the employees earnings for the rest of the employees life.
Why do you say that only the last option is valid?