Thing is, 'Made in the USA' is a marketing term, along with buzzwords like 'Proudly', 'Union', etc...
"Insourcing" means that you're not doing it to be patriotic. It means you're doing it because it makes sense on the balance sheet. It's cheaper to do the work here.
It doesn't even have to be a 'made' product - telephone support is a constant service, and the tendency to 'in-source' the work from where it was 'outsourced' to India a decade ago has been around for the last five years.
Made in the USA tends to imply a product that has always been made here - now often restricted to building materials, food, and such. 'Insourced' tends to mean that it used to be made overseas, and is now made(at least partially) here in the USA.
Terminology can be as specific as you make it - warm vs hot, cool vs cold. SNAFU vs FUBAR. Snow, flurries, hail, sleet, blizzard, all describe somewhat similar meteorological conditions that are actually very different. In this case 'Made in the USA' is less accurate than 'in-sourcing'. Heck, 'insourcing' could refer to BMW bringing some production home in Germany.
Apple probably will pay just over minimum wage, because really, that's all the job demands. Unless you think putting stuff in boxes demands more pay than flipping burgers, cleaning toilets or other stuff.
Depends on the position. As you just noted, 'manufacturing' in the USA tends to be second order - less doing the actual assembly and more maintaining the lines and robots that do the assembly. Robot maintainer is still a skilled job that demands better pay, and it's easily justified by the increased production that robots allow.
Sure, there will be some minimally skilled janitorial jobs that will probably receive close to minimum wage. Still, I support the importation of as many skilled jobs in highly automated factories as practical. I still remember an ancient film about productivity increases being the true enabler for higher worker wages. It was from disney, WWII time frame.
In a robotic plant, most of the workers are the ones who box things up at the end of the process. Usually the minimum qualifications are a high school diploma, if that. How is that a well paying job?
Isn't final packaging also normally robotic? Putting something in a box isn't hard to automate, and from what I've seen of modern packaging it'd be hard for manual workers to do. Lots of nitpicky little folds and things fitting exactly into slots. That's just using boxes, not fused clamshells.
As the ACs mention, you have the maintenance and adjustment of the robots, and that's a skilled job that justifies a 'living wage'.
US manufacturing has grown every decade, even as it's experienced a shedding of jobs in line with what happened to agriculture back during the industrial revolution. IE production going up an OOM even as you drop OOMs in worker numbers.
I've played around a bit with proposing having bonuses be based on difference in the net worth of the company between two time periods - profit + assets, NOT stock price. The time period should be not less than a year, and the really big bonuses for things more like 5-10 year performance.
We have a complete unit that was used as our paper shredder for years until it became too bulky. It weighs close to 80 lbs and must be suspended on a stand over a bag or bin, it doesn't fit under a desk. We also have a complete mechanism with chain and motor as well as a half assembled unit. We still have the shredder, but we now use one of those cheap staples bought cross cut shredders, does the job nicely. Those shredders were built to last and I bet there might be some still in operation at various government agencies.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot of them out there. We tend to not replace stuff like that as long as it's still working and authorized. 1mm x 5mm is still considered acceptable (1/32 x 5/32) for the highest security. 10-15 sheets sounds a bit high even for a 1/2 hp motor at that small of a shred paper unless it chews relatively very slowly. We get 5-6 sheets here at work, and like I said, it'll chop the average printed character into at least 4 pieces, even at 10 pt.
Maybe they'll use a centrifuge. Maybe electrostatic separation. Maybe they'll heat the oil with a peltier and use the cool side as "a serious refrigeration unit".
All of those take energy that would sap the efficiency of the system. I'd probably go with a large condensation box that has baffles in it like a septic tank to keep disturbances down. As the liquids cool and travel through/around the baffles, they're slowed and turbulence is minimized.
You might not need a 100% efficient separation system to make it work.
Still, I don't see it being more efficient at this point than traditional steam engines and turbines.
If nothing else, I figure the only people seeing them will be adults who frequent casinos. IE they can't have a real beef with slot machines and gambling in the first place. The only 'damage' would come from anti-gambling Tolkien fans, which would be a tiny fraction of the fans who just don't care either way, and a good chance of being outnumbered by the Tolkien fans who like gambling.
Update: watched the video of the 'shoot-down' from the drone's perspective. I have to say that I didn't hear what I was expecting - some sort of impact noise in the air. I heard some clicking, but that was it, then the drone started having problems.
I figure if it was really a rifle shot that the group would have released high definition still pictures of the damage to the drone.
BTW, watched the video of the 'shoot-down' from the drone's perspective. I have to say that I didn't hear what I was expecting - some sort of impact noise in the air. I heard some clicking, but that was it, then the drone started having problems.
Also the dipshits apparently heard something different sounding, reported as rifle.
I don't trust the PETA types to know the difference in report between a shotgun and a NERF gun, much less between a rifle and shotgun. Heck, even changing up the ammunition can alter how a shotgun reports.
Besides, looking at the drone again, I certainly wouldn't want to take a shot at it with a rifle.
Somewhere in the tree I mentioned Cheney's shooting of his friend - from an estimated 30 yards away with what was reported as #7.5 birdshot, and we know the injuries from that.
Still, that's for small birds, I'm thinking more 10 gauge shotgun loaded with something like #2, full choke, for roughly 150 yards of reach.
Bit of advice: When shooting at targets in the air, hunters generally use a shotgun, IE a smoothbore firearm loaded with little balls of lead or bismuth* alloys. In any case, shotguns loaded with shot are hazardous for far shorter distances, which is why you're allowed to fire them into the air.
Given that they were hunting pigeons, shooting at the drone with a rifle would require the 'dipshit' to go back to his vehicle or building and retrieve a rifle, and it's a tough shot.
It's far more likely many of the hunters 'donated' a shot or two at the drone with their pigeon guns. Pigeons relatively small birds, a commonly recommended size is #7.5. As Dick Cheney so ably demonstrated while hunting quail using the same #7.5 shot you'd expect for pigeon, you can easily survive being shot in the face with it merely 30 yards away.
Given the way the protestors tend to operate, I can fully believe them going 'closer! closer! to the point that the drone ends up within easy range** even for short range shot. Then it's just a matter of a 'lucky hit', which isn't hard when each shot is tossing ~250 pellets at the target.
*Less enivornmentally hazardous than lead. **With this type of shot, it's more a question of penetration at range than the hitting itself. If they're not doing enough damage, I'd imagine that a few might of had some shells loaded with larger pellets, perhaps #4-5, which would have more energy out that far, at the expense of fewer balls.
For slugs/sabot rounds, yea, about 150 yards is max range.
Well, the effective range of birdshot depends on the type. #6 will go further than #20.
What I find interesting about that figure is that the old tradition of defining 'national waters' was historically been the max range of the shore cannons of the day.
Thus, defining 'personal air space' as the max range of common arms* that a homeowner might have seems pretty traditional.
*Well, common shotguns which won't have a horribly dangerous projectile coming down, potentially miles away. Even a rifled slug doesn't have that range.
For the birthday problem, this means 3*sqrt(365) or about 57 people in the room means 99 times out of 100 there's at least one duplicate birthday.
That was already answered further up. What I was trying to ask was "Date of Birth", by which I meant going from looking for "January 27th" to "January 27th, 1968" as the specification for collision. Also, you have to realize that there's actually 366 possible birthdays on leap years; people with a birthday of Feb 29th are a lot rarer than the others, but still exist.
You go from 366 possibilities to ~26k if you're looking for the year as well. You'd need 484 people to have a 99% chance of somebody being born on the same day and year as somebody else in the crowd.
Good info - I know about the math and birthday paradox aren't unique; I was just looking to see if anybody had worked it out for DOB, and not just birthday. I figured it'd show how checking 7-13 points might not seem like much for positively identifying people, but how at 13 points, even if there's only ~100 options per point, it's rather unlikely for there to be a match short of twins even considering the world population of ~7B
100^13=12 Trillion people needed to have a 50% chance of having two match randomly. 100^7, the earlier standard, on the other hand, you'd only need 12M, so in a nation of 300M, I'd consider it insufficient proof. Certainly enough to haul somebody in and dig deeper though.
Tuoqui - Pete's post is accurate. You only need ~20 people for a 50% chance that two of those in the room have matching birthdays, but in this case we've already fixed 1 of them, thus the possiblitiy plumments down to 5.5%
Pete, I wonder - Given that DNA has a whole lot more than 366 possibilties, how many people do you need to have two that were born on the same day, for a properly randomized group of people?
It's not really in the article, but they've managed to get DNA testing science good enough that they can generally detect family lines. From what I've read, cousins can even provide clues. If a parent or child is tested, it's pretty slam dunk, grandparents, grandchildren, and cousins are more difficult, but still workable with a data set of 8k or so people. It can become complicated when you're looking at a somewhat closed breeding pool, US genetic lines are very different than some European countries. More diversified. On the other hand, you're less likely to get a parent if you simply check the city.
Though I think it's interesting that they only asked the men to be tested - finding a mother/daughter would be just as valuable if they weren't fairly convinced that the guy would get tested himself.
'Except for their lagging behind'. I'm aware of the difficulties. I just think that we need to solve that rather than go vigilante. Legalize drugs, retrain/retire & replace the vice departments and put them to work fighting identity theft, botnets, computer hacking, and such.
So if Anonymous hacks Iranian servers that would justify Iran sending a few missiles our way? Or if a random Israeli hacker hits some Iranian sites that makes their country a valid target too?
Believe it or not, but Iranian police DO cooperate to some extent with US and European police. There's a reason I stuck a 'maybe' on military action at that point and listed North Korea. It's also a diplomatic issue now that I've been away from it for a bit. Basically, the military is the only force
Hacking is rarely done at state level, so military force is extreme and almost certainly unlawful.
Did you know that the DoD is now has cyberwarfare divisions? I wasn't necessarily suggesting a missile strike, that was all on you. The point I was trying to make is that you work with the police whenever possible. When it goes to a place where police cooperation isn't possible, THEN the backup is military in nature, as it has nearly always been. It's the military that has the proper procedures and support structure to work in hostile territory.
As the AC mentioned, that leads to you being able to use force against a fraudster, which in the real world would land you in prison along with him.
For that matter, robbing your house could be considered a psychological attack compared with hacking a computer system.
My core point was that counter-hacking can't be considered under the same context as self-defense statutes, because generally speaking there's nobody's body on the line.
That is not true. You are allowed to use degrees of non-lethal force (such as a fist) to defend your property.
I don't know about you, but I'm not going up against somebody with a hammer with my bare fists. Even then the police recommend calling them over intervening.
You misunderstood me. Murderface proposed using self-defense clauses to excuse the counter-hacking. I disagreed - you're only allowed to commit harm, legally, in self defense. This doesn't qualify as self defense, because there's no bodily harm involved.
Thus raising your arms to deflect a blow, or even raising a metallic object to help block at the cost of your attacker's hand is perfectly legal - because blocking the blow is blocking injury, and you're allowed to use force in that case anyways - you'd be allowed to punch back, or even shoot them in some areas/cases.
In many areas if somebody is attacking your property with a weapon, yes, you're allowed to try to make them stop. But this generally involves restraint, and you're really supposed to just contact the police because intervening can result in it becoming a lethal situation(hammer can easily be a lethal weapon).
Slashdot Mirror
Thing is, 'Made in the USA' is a marketing term, along with buzzwords like 'Proudly', 'Union', etc...
"Insourcing" means that you're not doing it to be patriotic. It means you're doing it because it makes sense on the balance sheet. It's cheaper to do the work here.
It doesn't even have to be a 'made' product - telephone support is a constant service, and the tendency to 'in-source' the work from where it was 'outsourced' to India a decade ago has been around for the last five years.
Made in the USA tends to imply a product that has always been made here - now often restricted to building materials, food, and such. 'Insourced' tends to mean that it used to be made overseas, and is now made(at least partially) here in the USA.
Terminology can be as specific as you make it - warm vs hot, cool vs cold. SNAFU vs FUBAR. Snow, flurries, hail, sleet, blizzard, all describe somewhat similar meteorological conditions that are actually very different. In this case 'Made in the USA' is less accurate than 'in-sourcing'. Heck, 'insourcing' could refer to BMW bringing some production home in Germany.
Apple probably will pay just over minimum wage, because really, that's all the job demands. Unless you think putting stuff in boxes demands more pay than flipping burgers, cleaning toilets or other stuff.
Depends on the position. As you just noted, 'manufacturing' in the USA tends to be second order - less doing the actual assembly and more maintaining the lines and robots that do the assembly. Robot maintainer is still a skilled job that demands better pay, and it's easily justified by the increased production that robots allow.
Sure, there will be some minimally skilled janitorial jobs that will probably receive close to minimum wage. Still, I support the importation of as many skilled jobs in highly automated factories as practical. I still remember an ancient film about productivity increases being the true enabler for higher worker wages. It was from disney, WWII time frame.
In a robotic plant, most of the workers are the ones who box things up at the end of the process. Usually the minimum qualifications are a high school diploma, if that. How is that a well paying job?
Isn't final packaging also normally robotic? Putting something in a box isn't hard to automate, and from what I've seen of modern packaging it'd be hard for manual workers to do. Lots of nitpicky little folds and things fitting exactly into slots. That's just using boxes, not fused clamshells.
As the ACs mention, you have the maintenance and adjustment of the robots, and that's a skilled job that justifies a 'living wage'.
US manufacturing has grown every decade, even as it's experienced a shedding of jobs in line with what happened to agriculture back during the industrial revolution. IE production going up an OOM even as you drop OOMs in worker numbers.
I've played around a bit with proposing having bonuses be based on difference in the net worth of the company between two time periods - profit + assets, NOT stock price. The time period should be not less than a year, and the really big bonuses for things more like 5-10 year performance.
We have a complete unit that was used as our paper shredder for years until it became too bulky. It weighs close to 80 lbs and must be suspended on a stand over a bag or bin, it doesn't fit under a desk. We also have a complete mechanism with chain and motor as well as a half assembled unit. We still have the shredder, but we now use one of those cheap staples bought cross cut shredders, does the job nicely. Those shredders were built to last and I bet there might be some still in operation at various government agencies.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot of them out there. We tend to not replace stuff like that as long as it's still working and authorized. 1mm x 5mm is still considered acceptable (1/32 x 5/32) for the highest security. 10-15 sheets sounds a bit high even for a 1/2 hp motor at that small of a shred paper unless it chews relatively very slowly. We get 5-6 sheets here at work, and like I said, it'll chop the average printed character into at least 4 pieces, even at 10 pt.
The cost for X amount of steel, y amount of machining, z for mirrors, etc...
The costs for PV panels has dropped substantially. At this point I think that only large scale thermal solar will beat it's economy.
Maybe they'll use a centrifuge. Maybe electrostatic separation.
Maybe they'll heat the oil with a peltier and use the cool side as "a serious refrigeration unit".
All of those take energy that would sap the efficiency of the system. I'd probably go with a large condensation box that has baffles in it like a septic tank to keep disturbances down. As the liquids cool and travel through/around the baffles, they're slowed and turbulence is minimized.
You might not need a 100% efficient separation system to make it work.
Still, I don't see it being more efficient at this point than traditional steam engines and turbines.
Heh... I'd just go with a high security shredder approved by the NSA. Chops your average 10 pt font letter into at least 4 pieces.
If nothing else, I figure the only people seeing them will be adults who frequent casinos. IE they can't have a real beef with slot machines and gambling in the first place. The only 'damage' would come from anti-gambling Tolkien fans, which would be a tiny fraction of the fans who just don't care either way, and a good chance of being outnumbered by the Tolkien fans who like gambling.
can imagine JRR spinning in his grave hearing about his epic fantasy world being used in such a base and disconnected manner.
Did you know JRR when he was alive in order to accurately predict his views on such a thing?
Eh, I come more from a rifle background - you so much as point it at me I'm going to be incredibly irate.
Update: watched the video of the 'shoot-down' from the drone's perspective. I have to say that I didn't hear what I was expecting - some sort of impact noise in the air. I heard some clicking, but that was it, then the drone started having problems.
I figure if it was really a rifle shot that the group would have released high definition still pictures of the damage to the drone.
Nah, 8 lb mountain howitzer loaded with 00 Buck sized balls.
BTW, watched the video of the 'shoot-down' from the drone's perspective. I have to say that I didn't hear what I was expecting - some sort of impact noise in the air. I heard some clicking, but that was it, then the drone started having problems.
Also the dipshits apparently heard something different sounding, reported as rifle.
I don't trust the PETA types to know the difference in report between a shotgun and a NERF gun, much less between a rifle and shotgun. Heck, even changing up the ammunition can alter how a shotgun reports.
Besides, looking at the drone again, I certainly wouldn't want to take a shot at it with a rifle.
Somewhere in the tree I mentioned Cheney's shooting of his friend - from an estimated 30 yards away with what was reported as #7.5 birdshot, and we know the injuries from that.
Still, that's for small birds, I'm thinking more 10 gauge shotgun loaded with something like #2, full choke, for roughly 150 yards of reach.
Bit of advice: When shooting at targets in the air, hunters generally use a shotgun, IE a smoothbore firearm loaded with little balls of lead or bismuth* alloys. In any case, shotguns loaded with shot are hazardous for far shorter distances, which is why you're allowed to fire them into the air.
Given that they were hunting pigeons, shooting at the drone with a rifle would require the 'dipshit' to go back to his vehicle or building and retrieve a rifle, and it's a tough shot.
It's far more likely many of the hunters 'donated' a shot or two at the drone with their pigeon guns. Pigeons relatively small birds, a commonly recommended size is #7.5. As Dick Cheney so ably demonstrated while hunting quail using the same #7.5 shot you'd expect for pigeon, you can easily survive being shot in the face with it merely 30 yards away.
Given the way the protestors tend to operate, I can fully believe them going 'closer! closer! to the point that the drone ends up within easy range** even for short range shot. Then it's just a matter of a 'lucky hit', which isn't hard when each shot is tossing ~250 pellets at the target.
*Less enivornmentally hazardous than lead.
**With this type of shot, it's more a question of penetration at range than the hitting itself. If they're not doing enough damage, I'd imagine that a few might of had some shells loaded with larger pellets, perhaps #4-5, which would have more energy out that far, at the expense of fewer balls.
For slugs/sabot rounds, yea, about 150 yards is max range.
Well, the effective range of birdshot depends on the type. #6 will go further than #20.
What I find interesting about that figure is that the old tradition of defining 'national waters' was historically been the max range of the shore cannons of the day.
Thus, defining 'personal air space' as the max range of common arms* that a homeowner might have seems pretty traditional.
*Well, common shotguns which won't have a horribly dangerous projectile coming down, potentially miles away. Even a rifled slug doesn't have that range.
For the birthday problem, this means 3*sqrt(365) or about 57 people in the room means 99 times out of 100 there's at least one duplicate birthday.
That was already answered further up. What I was trying to ask was "Date of Birth", by which I meant going from looking for "January 27th" to "January 27th, 1968" as the specification for collision. Also, you have to realize that there's actually 366 possible birthdays on leap years; people with a birthday of Feb 29th are a lot rarer than the others, but still exist.
You go from 366 possibilities to ~26k if you're looking for the year as well. You'd need 484 people to have a 99% chance of somebody being born on the same day and year as somebody else in the crowd.
Good info - I know about the math and birthday paradox aren't unique; I was just looking to see if anybody had worked it out for DOB, and not just birthday. I figured it'd show how checking 7-13 points might not seem like much for positively identifying people, but how at 13 points, even if there's only ~100 options per point, it's rather unlikely for there to be a match short of twins even considering the world population of ~7B
100^13=12 Trillion people needed to have a 50% chance of having two match randomly.
100^7, the earlier standard, on the other hand, you'd only need 12M, so in a nation of 300M, I'd consider it insufficient proof. Certainly enough to haul somebody in and dig deeper though.
Tuoqui - Pete's post is accurate. You only need ~20 people for a 50% chance that two of those in the room have matching birthdays, but in this case we've already fixed 1 of them, thus the possiblitiy plumments down to 5.5%
Pete, I wonder - Given that DNA has a whole lot more than 366 possibilties, how many people do you need to have two that were born on the same day, for a properly randomized group of people?
It's not really in the article, but they've managed to get DNA testing science good enough that they can generally detect family lines. From what I've read, cousins can even provide clues. If a parent or child is tested, it's pretty slam dunk, grandparents, grandchildren, and cousins are more difficult, but still workable with a data set of 8k or so people. It can become complicated when you're looking at a somewhat closed breeding pool, US genetic lines are very different than some European countries. More diversified. On the other hand, you're less likely to get a parent if you simply check the city.
Though I think it's interesting that they only asked the men to be tested - finding a mother/daughter would be just as valuable if they weren't fairly convinced that the guy would get tested himself.
'Except for their lagging behind'. I'm aware of the difficulties. I just think that we need to solve that rather than go vigilante. Legalize drugs, retrain/retire & replace the vice departments and put them to work fighting identity theft, botnets, computer hacking, and such.
So if Anonymous hacks Iranian servers that would justify Iran sending a few missiles our way? Or if a random Israeli hacker hits some Iranian sites that makes their country a valid target too?
Believe it or not, but Iranian police DO cooperate to some extent with US and European police. There's a reason I stuck a 'maybe' on military action at that point and listed North Korea. It's also a diplomatic issue now that I've been away from it for a bit. Basically, the military is the only force
Hacking is rarely done at state level, so military force is extreme and almost certainly unlawful.
Did you know that the DoD is now has cyberwarfare divisions? I wasn't necessarily suggesting a missile strike, that was all on you. The point I was trying to make is that you work with the police whenever possible. When it goes to a place where police cooperation isn't possible, THEN the backup is military in nature, as it has nearly always been. It's the military that has the proper procedures and support structure to work in hostile territory.
As the AC mentioned, that leads to you being able to use force against a fraudster, which in the real world would land you in prison along with him.
For that matter, robbing your house could be considered a psychological attack compared with hacking a computer system.
My core point was that counter-hacking can't be considered under the same context as self-defense statutes, because generally speaking there's nobody's body on the line.
That is not true. You are allowed to use degrees of non-lethal force (such as a fist) to defend your property.
I don't know about you, but I'm not going up against somebody with a hammer with my bare fists. Even then the police recommend calling them over intervening.
You misunderstood me. Murderface proposed using self-defense clauses to excuse the counter-hacking. I disagreed - you're only allowed to commit harm, legally, in self defense. This doesn't qualify as self defense, because there's no bodily harm involved.
Thus raising your arms to deflect a blow, or even raising a metallic object to help block at the cost of your attacker's hand is perfectly legal - because blocking the blow is blocking injury, and you're allowed to use force in that case anyways - you'd be allowed to punch back, or even shoot them in some areas/cases.
In many areas if somebody is attacking your property with a weapon, yes, you're allowed to try to make them stop. But this generally involves restraint, and you're really supposed to just contact the police because intervening can result in it becoming a lethal situation(hammer can easily be a lethal weapon).