Well you still need to realize that wages and raises are Supply vs. Demand.
Certainally supply and demand are large factors, but there's one more: executive greed. This was best demonstrated by one of the airlines (United, I think) persuading unions to take major concessions on pay and benefits to avoid job cuts and company bankruptcy, while at the same time trying to secure large golden parachutes for top executives in the event of said bankruptcy. And the major check on exuctive greed, the union, has been in steady decline for decades. Primarily because most Americans seem to have bought anti-union propoganda hook, line and sinker.
CEO's get Better Raises when they show company growth, because if they don't give them a raise they will leave for an other company, leaving the risk of getting a poorer performing CEO.
Plenty of poorly performing CEOs have gotten plenty of pay increases. I say, give them the boot and hire some cheap MBA's from India. That's what "outsourcing" should be.
I think Half Life 2 pretty much explored every option of making a game immersive
They didn't try making the game into something other than a damned rat tunnel. Being forced to follow a single 10 foot wide path through the game worked in the first Half-Life, because you are in a partially collapsed underground base. The second game takes place almost entirely above ground, so the rat tunnel ruins any sense of immersion.
If there's one thing Jack Thompson ha going for him is a vast amount of studies showing that interactive entertainment has a strong impact on developing minds.
No. There aren't. Will a child who plays violent video games display higher agression than one who watches Sesame Street? Sure. But so will a child who gets involved in an energetic game of tag or Monopoly. And these effets are temporary.
I went in to see Apocolapse knowing that the movie had been panned by every critic alive, and probably a few dead ones too. I was about twenty or so minutes into the movie, and thinking that while the movie wasn't going to win any Oscars, it wasn't bad. The critics were full of crap as usual.
But then I saw Mila's entrance in the cathedral scene, and thought, "no, the critics were exactly right about this movie".
More time at the company = more experience = more value = you should get a raise every year. Not to mention the fact that your cost of living increases every year due to inflation, so no raise is actually a pay CUT as others have pointed out.
...or at least it should be. No reason why you, the internet security guru, shouldn't get paid as much as Bob over in sales if you equally contribute to the company's bottom line.
Well it is a situation where we are recouping from a huge bubble.
Sure, but there's a difference between stagnant wages because a company is falling on hard times, and stagnant wages among workers so the CEO can continue to enjoy his 20% raise every year. There's a good deal of both to go around.
A government agency is more competent than private industry? You've never worked for government, have you?
You've never worked for a failing business, have you? News flash: capitalism and private industry fail every second of every day. Companies have bad business models, not enough customers, waste, fraud, not enough return on investment, and go broke.
For example, the law in Virginia requiring seat belt use is obviously a violation of civil liberties.
Nonsense. You get in a car accident, don't wear a seat belt and get hurt. This forces other people (the other insurers with your policy holder) to pay for your dumb ass, violating their civil liberties.
Maybe because it takes a great deal of training to make a good soldier, compared to...holding a big flat object? Or maybe using your best arms and armor for the people on the front lines? Or maybe giving the old, the young, or the women something to do in the battle? Just maybe?
You obviously didnt think about this for 2 seconds
on
Archimedes Death Ray
·
· Score: 1
For one, they do *many* more experiments than they show on air. Check out their website for details - basically, for every one experiment that makes it to air, they did 5.
I have ordered at least a dozen hard drives over the last five years, and not one has arrived that was DOA. Therefore, no one ever recieves a hard drive that does not work, and DOA's from manufacturers is a myth.
In reference to this episode in particular, you can be sure they tried many different cell models with many different levels of gas.
Say Samsung sells 10 million cell phones a year, and this problem only occurs on 1% of them. The chances of Myth Busters getting an exploding cell phone are very remote, and yet there's still 100,000 cell phones out that that could potentially explode.
For two, in reference to this particular episode, they did bust the myth that a cell phone can cause an explosion *through normal useage*.
"Normal usage" is a complete red herring. Showing that something doesn't "normally happen" does squat to prove that it *doesn't happen.*
What they ended up saying, is in all likelihood the reported explosions were not coming from cell phones, but were a result of static electricity buildup at the scene.
Quite possible, and it sounds like an interesting lab experiment. But you'd have to try more than five times before you threw up your hands and said, "it's not possible."
I guess I just don't understand this kind of thinking.
Must not be a fan of yourself then, if you can't understand that a screen shouldn't be scratched merely from comming in contact with cotton fabric.
I mean seriously here...what exactly is "defective"???
See above. Your last name isn't Pot by any chance, is it?
News flash: iPod Nanos shiny surface will scratch.
News flash: if it's pathetically easy to scratch the screen compared to other devices (like oh, say, all other previously made iPods), they need to TELL YOU THIS.
In other news: It turns out that Apple customers are as big a bunch of whiners as we always suspected.
No more so than a new car owner who is pissed because it starts rusting the first time it gets rained on. Idiot.
Nobody really needs a military right now anyhow, right?
Since you asked...no, not really. The U.S. has a friendly nation above it, a friendly nation below it, and the other sides are surrounded by the largest oceans in the world. Add that to the fact that we've needed an army for defence exactly twice (during 1812 and WWII), how is spending hundereds of billions a year on an uneeded military NOT asinine beyond belief?
I don't know about anyone else but I'd much rather NOT have the government control my internet access anymore than they already try to.
More nonsense. This doens't have anything to do with government getting its hands on the network, it has to do with the government ensuring that different companies can compete on those networks.
As you already mentioned, the author of TFA covered these two things.
Income levels & cost of living differences
That should only change what people are able to pay, not what it costs to provide the service in the first place.
Ex: while arguing against the area factor, he uses san francisco as a counter arguement, while failing to provide any information about how SF is performing more 'poorly'
He never said SanFran was performing "poorly", he said, "...and cannot explain why densely populated cities such as San Francisco do not have access to the same types of high-speed connections found in Seoul, South Korea, or Tokyo."
The article jumps to the conclusion that "the man" is trying to screw you.
Again, the author doesn't do anything of the kind; this is a conclusion that you made up. The problems are 1) the U.S. has no broadband policy 2) the FCC considers.375 Mbits to be a "high speed" connection and 3) eliminating common carrier regulations.
However, without accounting for the above factors the author doesn't have a logic basis in making that conclusion and is just ranting.
Somebody didn't RTFA, as the article was way ahead of you on this. If high population density is a requirement, that doesn't explain why people in the Bay Area or NYC don't have fast, cheap internet acess. If being rural is the problem, Canada is far more rural than the U.S. and yet is far ahead of us when it comes to broadband coverage or speed.
I feel there's the fact the US land is way bigger than in say Japan, South Korea. Thus rolling out fibres and cables look cheaper to do so in these locations.
The article covered this...while there are large rural areas in the U.S., that doesn't mean that a densly populated area like San Francisco shouldn't have the same broadband options as Seoul. And Canada is far more rural than the U.S., and yet they have much better broadband available.
Dead wrong. FairPlay is about vendor lock-in first and foremost.
Utter. Nonsense. Any company that pitched an online store to the RIAA without DRM would get laughed out of the room. That Apple may also like the DRM on iTunes songs does nothing to change this fact.
Convincing the RIAA that it would have anything whatsoever to do with preventing piracy (which it clearly doesn't) is just marketing.
Oh, please. The RIAA and the MPAA were into copy control mechanisms long before the Internet as we know it existed. Sony vs. Betamax. The hobbling of DAT tapes. CSS on DVD's.
So you must be self employed then, or work for a small company...because the vast majority of companies ARE politically active at the local, state or federal level.
Oh, and I was going to add: at least with a union, you can democratically vote on where this money goes. Good luck having a say in where corporate donations go, unless you are a major shareholder.
No matter HOW much more I then make, I object to a slice of my earnings going to a particular 'wing' of politics that I might not agree with.
So you must be self employed then, or work for a small company...because the vast majority of companies ARE politically active at the local, state or federal level.
It's a moot point though. The AFL/CIO now knows what the outcome was of fucking around with electoral politics instead of sticking to workers' issues. Hopefully the split-off unions will now focus more on what matters to their dues paying membership.
Hmm, the Republican party generally opposes anything that gets in the way of businesses making money, and thus are opposed to things like workers rights, saftey regulations and the minimum wage. Whereas the Democratic party is generally for all those things. So let me guess: you flunked math, didn't you?
Working for any sizeable business pretty much guarantees that the work you do will fund lobbying for one or both parties. So do you refuse to work for any company that does political lobbying, or was that just another retarded, boiler plate anti-union argument that doesn't stand up to a few seconds of scruitiny?
Slashdot Mirror
Well you still need to realize that wages and raises are Supply vs. Demand.
Certainally supply and demand are large factors, but there's one more: executive greed. This was best demonstrated by one of the airlines (United, I think) persuading unions to take major concessions on pay and benefits to avoid job cuts and company bankruptcy, while at the same time trying to secure large golden parachutes for top executives in the event of said bankruptcy. And the major check on exuctive greed, the union, has been in steady decline for decades. Primarily because most Americans seem to have bought anti-union propoganda hook, line and sinker.
CEO's get Better Raises when they show company growth, because if they don't give them a raise they will leave for an other company, leaving the risk of getting a poorer performing CEO.
Plenty of poorly performing CEOs have gotten plenty of pay increases. I say, give them the boot and hire some cheap MBA's from India. That's what "outsourcing" should be.
I think Half Life 2 pretty much explored every option of making a game immersive
They didn't try making the game into something other than a damned rat tunnel. Being forced to follow a single 10 foot wide path through the game worked in the first Half-Life, because you are in a partially collapsed underground base. The second game takes place almost entirely above ground, so the rat tunnel ruins any sense of immersion.
If there's one thing Jack Thompson ha going for him is a vast amount of studies showing that interactive entertainment has a strong impact on developing minds.
No. There aren't. Will a child who plays violent video games display higher agression than one who watches Sesame Street? Sure. But so will a child who gets involved in an energetic game of tag or Monopoly. And these effets are temporary.
I went in to see Apocolapse knowing that the movie had been panned by every critic alive, and probably a few dead ones too. I was about twenty or so minutes into the movie, and thinking that while the movie wasn't going to win any Oscars, it wasn't bad. The critics were full of crap as usual.
But then I saw Mila's entrance in the cathedral scene, and thought, "no, the critics were exactly right about this movie".
More time at the company = more experience = more value = you should get a raise every year. Not to mention the fact that your cost of living increases every year due to inflation, so no raise is actually a pay CUT as others have pointed out.
...or at least it should be. No reason why you, the internet security guru, shouldn't get paid as much as Bob over in sales if you equally contribute to the company's bottom line.
Well it is a situation where we are recouping from a huge bubble.
Sure, but there's a difference between stagnant wages because a company is falling on hard times, and stagnant wages among workers so the CEO can continue to enjoy his 20% raise every year. There's a good deal of both to go around.
A government agency is more competent than private industry? You've never worked for government, have you?
You've never worked for a failing business, have you? News flash: capitalism and private industry fail every second of every day. Companies have bad business models, not enough customers, waste, fraud, not enough return on investment, and go broke.
For example, the law in Virginia requiring seat belt use is obviously a violation of civil liberties.
Nonsense. You get in a car accident, don't wear a seat belt and get hurt. This forces other people (the other insurers with your policy holder) to pay for your dumb ass, violating their civil liberties.
Maybe because it takes a great deal of training to make a good soldier, compared to...holding a big flat object? Or maybe using your best arms and armor for the people on the front lines? Or maybe giving the old, the young, or the women something to do in the battle? Just maybe?
For one, they do *many* more experiments than they show on air. Check out their website for details - basically, for every one experiment that makes it to air, they did 5.
I have ordered at least a dozen hard drives over the last five years, and not one has arrived that was DOA. Therefore, no one ever recieves a hard drive that does not work, and DOA's from manufacturers is a myth.
In reference to this episode in particular, you can be sure they tried many different cell models with many different levels of gas.
Say Samsung sells 10 million cell phones a year, and this problem only occurs on 1% of them. The chances of Myth Busters getting an exploding cell phone are very remote, and yet there's still 100,000 cell phones out that that could potentially explode.
For two, in reference to this particular episode, they did bust the myth that a cell phone can cause an explosion *through normal useage*.
"Normal usage" is a complete red herring. Showing that something doesn't "normally happen" does squat to prove that it *doesn't happen.*
What they ended up saying, is in all likelihood the reported explosions were not coming from cell phones, but were a result of static electricity buildup at the scene.
Quite possible, and it sounds like an interesting lab experiment. But you'd have to try more than five times before you threw up your hands and said, "it's not possible."
I guess I just don't understand this kind of thinking.
Must not be a fan of yourself then, if you can't understand that a screen shouldn't be scratched merely from comming in contact with cotton fabric.
I mean seriously here...what exactly is "defective"???
See above. Your last name isn't Pot by any chance, is it?
News flash: iPod Nanos shiny surface will scratch.
News flash: if it's pathetically easy to scratch the screen compared to other devices (like oh, say, all other previously made iPods), they need to TELL YOU THIS.
In other news: It turns out that Apple customers are as big a bunch of whiners as we always suspected.
No more so than a new car owner who is pissed because it starts rusting the first time it gets rained on. Idiot.
I see corporate shills have modpoints. WTG!
Nobody really needs a military right now anyhow, right?
Since you asked...no, not really. The U.S. has a friendly nation above it, a friendly nation below it, and the other sides are surrounded by the largest oceans in the world. Add that to the fact that we've needed an army for defence exactly twice (during 1812 and WWII), how is spending hundereds of billions a year on an uneeded military NOT asinine beyond belief?
Yeah, I mean, Al Gore Invented the internet.
A bad joke since he never claimed to do so.
I don't know about anyone else but I'd much rather NOT have the government control my internet access anymore than they already try to.
More nonsense. This doens't have anything to do with government getting its hands on the network, it has to do with the government ensuring that different companies can compete on those networks.
Perhaps it's because they have HIGHER TAXES.
MAYBE NOT. See all the posters pointing out that EU telecom companies are NOT subsidized.
It seems to me that this article doesn't take into account the size and disbursement of the US population.
It seems to me that you didn't RTFA. Try it, and note the parts on Canada and San Francisco.
Population densities
.375 Mbits to be a "high speed" connection and 3) eliminating common carrier regulations.
Area to cover
As you already mentioned, the author of TFA covered these two things.
Income levels & cost of living differences
That should only change what people are able to pay, not what it costs to provide the service in the first place.
Ex: while arguing against the area factor, he uses san francisco as a counter arguement, while failing to provide any information about how SF is performing more 'poorly'
He never said SanFran was performing "poorly", he said, "...and cannot explain why densely populated cities such as San Francisco do not have access to the same types of high-speed connections found in Seoul, South Korea, or Tokyo."
The article jumps to the conclusion that "the man" is trying to screw you.
Again, the author doesn't do anything of the kind; this is a conclusion that you made up. The problems are 1) the U.S. has no broadband policy 2) the FCC considers
However, without accounting for the above factors the author doesn't have a logic basis in making that conclusion and is just ranting.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Somebody didn't RTFA, as the article was way ahead of you on this. If high population density is a requirement, that doesn't explain why people in the Bay Area or NYC don't have fast, cheap internet acess. If being rural is the problem, Canada is far more rural than the U.S. and yet is far ahead of us when it comes to broadband coverage or speed.
I feel there's the fact the US land is way bigger than in say Japan, South Korea. Thus rolling out fibres and cables look cheaper to do so in these locations.
The article covered this...while there are large rural areas in the U.S., that doesn't mean that a densly populated area like San Francisco shouldn't have the same broadband options as Seoul. And Canada is far more rural than the U.S., and yet they have much better broadband available.
Dead wrong. FairPlay is about vendor lock-in first and foremost.
Utter. Nonsense. Any company that pitched an online store to the RIAA without DRM would get laughed out of the room. That Apple may also like the DRM on iTunes songs does nothing to change this fact.
Convincing the RIAA that it would have anything whatsoever to do with preventing piracy (which it clearly doesn't) is just marketing.
Oh, please. The RIAA and the MPAA were into copy control mechanisms long before the Internet as we know it existed. Sony vs. Betamax. The hobbling of DAT tapes. CSS on DVD's.
But we are seeing more often states passing laws that prohibit unions from using member's dues in this manner without their written consent.
Funny those laws don't apply to businesses that donate to political parties.
So you must be self employed then, or work for a small company...because the vast majority of companies ARE politically active at the local, state or federal level.
Oh, and I was going to add: at least with a union, you can democratically vote on where this money goes. Good luck having a say in where corporate donations go, unless you are a major shareholder.
No matter HOW much more I then make, I object to a slice of my earnings going to a particular 'wing' of politics that I might not agree with.
So you must be self employed then, or work for a small company...because the vast majority of companies ARE politically active at the local, state or federal level.
It's a moot point though. The AFL/CIO now knows what the outcome was of fucking around with electoral politics instead of sticking to workers' issues. Hopefully the split-off unions will now focus more on what matters to their dues paying membership.
Hmm, the Republican party generally opposes anything that gets in the way of businesses making money, and thus are opposed to things like workers rights, saftey regulations and the minimum wage. Whereas the Democratic party is generally for all those things. So let me guess: you flunked math, didn't you?
Working for any sizeable business pretty much guarantees that the work you do will fund lobbying for one or both parties. So do you refuse to work for any company that does political lobbying, or was that just another retarded, boiler plate anti-union argument that doesn't stand up to a few seconds of scruitiny?