I've said it before, I'm saying it again: When a company offshores operations, they should be required to follow their home nation's environmental and labour laws as WELL as those of the foreign country.
A nice thought, but how could you enforce such a law? I don't think the Chinese would appreciate having the EPA snooping around all their factories.
Government intervention in markets is NEVER productive. When you give +100 in subsidies to a particular industry, you must take a total of -120, -140, or even -200 from other industries. This does NOTHING except make their economy weaker.
I agree that they might not be the most efficient mechanism, but subsidies definitely do have a positive effect on an industry, that "+100" you mentioned. Yes, you may also have that "-120" in another industry (may, I see no reason why this MUST be the case), but that's okay. The purpose of subsidies is to allow government to have an influence on which industries are growing. Yes, putting 100 into the solar industry might result in a -120 in the oil industry, but that's kind of the whole point.
Yeah, but remember that when they made that motto they were also busy destroying a bunch of cathedrals, and spent a lot of effort trying to eliminate religion from public life entirely. Based on that, I would say the Burka thing is completely in line with the spirit of the revolution (the first one anyways).
Parent's logic is that it is okay because you force EVERYONE to show their face -- not just the Muslims. Thus it is not religious discrimination, since nobody is being discriminated against; everyone is treated the same way.
Of course the obvious counter is that only the Muslim's WANT to show their faces, so, even if the law applies to everyone, it only actually affects one group.
The counter to this is that this is always the case with laws; they generally affect only those who would break them.
Anyways, as for your anecdote, what if my religion said I should walk around naked? Would it be religious discrimination for the laws saying one can't go to school naked to also apply to me? If it is reasonable to enforce conformity to one societal standard with respect to attire (don't be naked) than it seems like it is also reasonable to enforce another (don't cover your face).
Your addiction only affects me if the price of your addiction is so high that you have to steal to feed your habit. I've never heard of anyone stealing to support their cigarette, alcohol, or caffeine addictions.
Stop trolling. If you can't understand the difference between heroin addiction and caffeine "addiction" then there's no point in even having a discussion.
Heroin addiction doesn't destroy lives because heroin is expensive. It destroys lives because the addiction is so powerful that you will sacrifice everything else for one more taste.
What does addiction have to do with it?
Everything, since it destroys the ability of people to act rationally. Once you become addicted to heroin you no longer are "making the choice" to hurt yourself and those who care for you. The drug takes away your ability to choose.
I agree completely that the "war on drugs" is not a solution, and causes many problems, some of which are worse than that which it seeks to prevent.
In fact, I am completely for the legalization of all non-addictive drugs. I just have a problem with complete legalization of highly addictive substances such as opiates. Clearly prohibition and the war on drugs is not an effective solution, but neither is going to the opposite end of the spectrum with complete legalization.
An effective drug policy is a complex thing, and speaking in strict absolutes (on either side of the argument) does not contribute to the conversation in a useful way.
Besides the second Iraq war, what wars has the US initiated? WWI and WWII clearly not, Korea no, Vietnam you could make an argument for, but really it was getting involved in someone else's civil war more than initiating a conflict, Desert Storm obviously not, Afghanistan was a response to 9/11.
The US is clearly hostile, but historically they generally let the other guy shoot first.
His point is that prohibition does not work, never has worked, cannot work, and is an example of prohibition causing what it's supposed to prevent.
But this is clearly not true. Alcohol consumption plummeted during prohibition in the US. I'm not saying it's the best policy, but saying it doesn't "work" is just a lie.
but if heroin were legal for adults it would be much harder for kids to get hold of.
What? It might not be easier to get, but it certainly won't be harder... I certainly didn't have a hard time getting my hands on booze or cigarettes when I was in high school.
All I see is hand waving "it will be bad!!!!"...how?
People try it out a few times because they have safe easy access to it, and they become addicted. People who never would have tried it otherwise. With drugs like heroin and crystal meth, once your body gets addicted, you lose the ability to rationally control your behavior.
The laws aren't keeping it from a single person who wants it.
Again, this is simply not true. There are many people who would try heroin (and potentially become addicted) if it were legal (I'm one of those people).
I don't know what your point is, but again, you can't really compare marijuana, alcohol, and cigarettes to the likes of heroin. Having the first three be legal makes sense, while I don't see any benefit to legalizing heroin. You can't really use heroin responsibly. The arguments for legalization of such drugs are mostly about the ill effects of the war on drugs, rather than the (supposed) benefits of legalization.
Why not do both? Stop the war on drugs, and use the money instead for education, rehabilitation, and treatment. Legalizing heroin is just as stupid of a solution to the problem as the War on Drugs.
And consider this -- the two most deadly and addictive drugs in exiustance are legal -- tobacco and alcohol. More prople die from overdose of alcohol than overdose of all other drugs combined. Tobacco kills most of uts users.
You think tobacco and alcohol are the two most deadly and addictive drugs in existence???? Ever heard of heroin? Crystal meth?
I agree that tobacco and alcohol can be dangerous, but calling them more dangerous than heroin and crystal meth is just idiotic.
Can you imagine the effect on society if you could buy heroin the way you can buy cigarettes?
Overall, fewer people take drugs in the Netherlands now that they're de facto legal.
Soft, non-addictive drugs, sure. Physically addictive drugs like crystal meth, heroin, opium, etc... should not be legalized. You can't trust people to use drugs like that responsibly. The human mind is simply not equipped to handle chemicals like that. It encroaches on your liberties, but it also has a net positive effect on society.
If you really think society would be better off if you could buy crystal meth and heroin at every liquor store, I don't know what to tell you.
I generally agree with the legalization argument, but you're oversimplifying things. Many things are illegal only partially for the damage they allow you to do to yourself. The abuse of many substances could/would also have a widespread negative effect on society. Just as we restrict "liberty" by forcing all children to go to school in order to promote an educated society, we should also restrict liberty by preventing people from using highly addictive drugs like opiates.
It wouldn't qualify under racial protections, as long as it is applied to everyone. Namely, you fire black and white people if they have green eyes, or are left-handed.
I fail to see how "green-eyed" people are any less of a race than "dark-skinned" people. If you get racial protection for having brown skin, why shouldn't the same protections apply for having green eyes? Because it's a different organ?
Indeed... I couldn't look at their genetic sequence and fire them just because they have the gene for being a psychopath, but that doesn't mean that I can't fire them for their behavior.
The only argument I see that prevents you from firing someone over their behavior is if they have a disability. Now, if you started classifying "psychopath" as a disability (which may not be completely unreasonable) then you would have to start giving them special treatment/consideration as an employer.
but should a company have to make reasonable accommodations to support someone who is lazy, even if it is a neurological disorder?
This is an interesting and open question which we shall have to deal with in the coming decades. As neuroscience finds more and more that we are literally "unable to control", do we need to start making special accommodations for those who are at a disadvantage? It seems impossible to level the playing field, and yet it also seems unfair not to.
I agree completely, but remember, you donate your organs to save someone's life. The fact that *someone* makes a huge profit off of it is merely a byproduct, and doesn't change the fact that your organs will save someone.
But as I said, I agree that health care costs are out of control, and the fact that most health-care in the US is for-profit business is just sad. Medical services should be about saving lives, NOT making money. They cannot, on a fundamental level, be both.
Shouldn't the donor ('s family) get the proceeds?
on
When Are You Dead?
·
· Score: 1
Who exactly is getting all this money for these organs?
I can't believe that it really costs $750,000 to harvest someone's liver and put it in someone else. Medical costs are so inflated in the US, it's absolutely ridiculous... You're telling me it costs the same amount to transplant a liver as it costs to produce 35-40 mid-range (~$20,000) cars??
I know what you're trying to say, but what the OP said is even more important for physicists and models. Often they can't run their code to "test" it to make sure they get the right answer (except for trivial cases). It is VERY important that they know exactly what their code does before they compile it.
Really, they could have taken any old piece of metal and heated it to 135 C and measured the amount of light generated. It's known as the blackbody effect. The fact that it's an LED is completely irrelevant.
That's going a bit over the top. A piece of metal (or pretty much any matter) will emit almost no measurable light at 135 degrees. Just look at the black body curve for 135 C. At optical frequencies your emissions will be ~0. You can't account for all of the emissions with black body radiation. The effect is probably related, but "simple" it is certainly not.
I've never met a Mexican or Canadian who was offended by referring to citizens of the USA as "Americans". It's the most logical thing to call a person from the USA. It is also clearly distinct from Continental references, which would logically have the "North" or "South" prefix.
It's also the convention in every language I've ever heard. Why change something that works?
Slashdot Mirror
You put on your thinking cap, and yet believe, literally, myths written thousands of years ago? Flimsy cap, that.
To make Chinese panels more expensive than American panels. Isn't that obvious?
I've said it before, I'm saying it again: When a company offshores operations, they should be required to follow their home nation's environmental and labour laws as WELL as those of the foreign country.
A nice thought, but how could you enforce such a law? I don't think the Chinese would appreciate having the EPA snooping around all their factories.
Government intervention in markets is NEVER productive. When you give +100 in subsidies to a particular industry, you must take a total of -120, -140, or even -200 from other industries. This does NOTHING except make their economy weaker.
I agree that they might not be the most efficient mechanism, but subsidies definitely do have a positive effect on an industry, that "+100" you mentioned. Yes, you may also have that "-120" in another industry (may, I see no reason why this MUST be the case), but that's okay. The purpose of subsidies is to allow government to have an influence on which industries are growing. Yes, putting 100 into the solar industry might result in a -120 in the oil industry, but that's kind of the whole point.
Yeah, but remember that when they made that motto they were also busy destroying a bunch of cathedrals, and spent a lot of effort trying to eliminate religion from public life entirely. Based on that, I would say the Burka thing is completely in line with the spirit of the revolution (the first one anyways).
Of course the obvious counter is that only the Muslim's WANT to show their faces, so, even if the law applies to everyone, it only actually affects one group.
The counter to this is that this is always the case with laws; they generally affect only those who would break them.
Anyways, as for your anecdote, what if my religion said I should walk around naked? Would it be religious discrimination for the laws saying one can't go to school naked to also apply to me? If it is reasonable to enforce conformity to one societal standard with respect to attire (don't be naked) than it seems like it is also reasonable to enforce another (don't cover your face).
America also has a massive ammount of debt - owned cheifly by China and Japan.
This is a misleading statement. The vast majority of American debt is owned by Americans.
Your addiction only affects me if the price of your addiction is so high that you have to steal to feed your habit. I've never heard of anyone stealing to support their cigarette, alcohol, or caffeine addictions.
Stop trolling. If you can't understand the difference between heroin addiction and caffeine "addiction" then there's no point in even having a discussion.
Heroin addiction doesn't destroy lives because heroin is expensive. It destroys lives because the addiction is so powerful that you will sacrifice everything else for one more taste.
What does addiction have to do with it?
Everything, since it destroys the ability of people to act rationally. Once you become addicted to heroin you no longer are "making the choice" to hurt yourself and those who care for you. The drug takes away your ability to choose.
In fact, I am completely for the legalization of all non-addictive drugs. I just have a problem with complete legalization of highly addictive substances such as opiates. Clearly prohibition and the war on drugs is not an effective solution, but neither is going to the opposite end of the spectrum with complete legalization.
An effective drug policy is a complex thing, and speaking in strict absolutes (on either side of the argument) does not contribute to the conversation in a useful way.
The US is clearly hostile, but historically they generally let the other guy shoot first.
His point is that prohibition does not work, never has worked, cannot work, and is an example of prohibition causing what it's supposed to prevent.
But this is clearly not true. Alcohol consumption plummeted during prohibition in the US. I'm not saying it's the best policy, but saying it doesn't "work" is just a lie.
but if heroin were legal for adults it would be much harder for kids to get hold of.
What? It might not be easier to get, but it certainly won't be harder... I certainly didn't have a hard time getting my hands on booze or cigarettes when I was in high school.
All I see is hand waving "it will be bad!!!!"...how?
People try it out a few times because they have safe easy access to it, and they become addicted. People who never would have tried it otherwise. With drugs like heroin and crystal meth, once your body gets addicted, you lose the ability to rationally control your behavior.
The laws aren't keeping it from a single person who wants it.
Again, this is simply not true. There are many people who would try heroin (and potentially become addicted) if it were legal (I'm one of those people).
Why not do both? Stop the war on drugs, and use the money instead for education, rehabilitation, and treatment. Legalizing heroin is just as stupid of a solution to the problem as the War on Drugs.
Yes, and that's entirely different from legalizing heroin and selling it in coffeeshops.
Heroin is definitely NOT legal in the Netherlands.
And consider this -- the two most deadly and addictive drugs in exiustance are legal -- tobacco and alcohol. More prople die from overdose of alcohol than overdose of all other drugs combined. Tobacco kills most of uts users.
You think tobacco and alcohol are the two most deadly and addictive drugs in existence???? Ever heard of heroin? Crystal meth?
I agree that tobacco and alcohol can be dangerous, but calling them more dangerous than heroin and crystal meth is just idiotic.
Can you imagine the effect on society if you could buy heroin the way you can buy cigarettes?
Overall, fewer people take drugs in the Netherlands now that they're de facto legal.
Soft, non-addictive drugs, sure. Physically addictive drugs like crystal meth, heroin, opium, etc... should not be legalized. You can't trust people to use drugs like that responsibly. The human mind is simply not equipped to handle chemicals like that. It encroaches on your liberties, but it also has a net positive effect on society.
If you really think society would be better off if you could buy crystal meth and heroin at every liquor store, I don't know what to tell you.
I generally agree with the legalization argument, but you're oversimplifying things. Many things are illegal only partially for the damage they allow you to do to yourself. The abuse of many substances could/would also have a widespread negative effect on society. Just as we restrict "liberty" by forcing all children to go to school in order to promote an educated society, we should also restrict liberty by preventing people from using highly addictive drugs like opiates.
It wouldn't qualify under racial protections, as long as it is applied to everyone. Namely, you fire black and white people if they have green eyes, or are left-handed.
I fail to see how "green-eyed" people are any less of a race than "dark-skinned" people. If you get racial protection for having brown skin, why shouldn't the same protections apply for having green eyes? Because it's a different organ?
Indeed... I couldn't look at their genetic sequence and fire them just because they have the gene for being a psychopath, but that doesn't mean that I can't fire them for their behavior.
The only argument I see that prevents you from firing someone over their behavior is if they have a disability. Now, if you started classifying "psychopath" as a disability (which may not be completely unreasonable) then you would have to start giving them special treatment/consideration as an employer.
but should a company have to make reasonable accommodations to support someone who is lazy, even if it is a neurological disorder?
This is an interesting and open question which we shall have to deal with in the coming decades. As neuroscience finds more and more that we are literally "unable to control", do we need to start making special accommodations for those who are at a disadvantage? It seems impossible to level the playing field, and yet it also seems unfair not to.
They can fire you because you're left-handed. They can fire you because you have green eyes.
Umm, wouldn't those fall under racial/genetic/color protections?
But as I said, I agree that health care costs are out of control, and the fact that most health-care in the US is for-profit business is just sad. Medical services should be about saving lives, NOT making money. They cannot, on a fundamental level, be both.
I can't believe that it really costs $750,000 to harvest someone's liver and put it in someone else. Medical costs are so inflated in the US, it's absolutely ridiculous... You're telling me it costs the same amount to transplant a liver as it costs to produce 35-40 mid-range (~$20,000) cars??
I know what you're trying to say, but what the OP said is even more important for physicists and models. Often they can't run their code to "test" it to make sure they get the right answer (except for trivial cases). It is VERY important that they know exactly what their code does before they compile it.
Oh, and do you really think that physicists from MIT didn't consider the blackbody effect when measuring the emissions??? Or their reviewers?? Please.
Really, they could have taken any old piece of metal and heated it to 135 C and measured the amount of light generated. It's known as the blackbody effect. The fact that it's an LED is completely irrelevant.
That's going a bit over the top. A piece of metal (or pretty much any matter) will emit almost no measurable light at 135 degrees. Just look at the black body curve for 135 C. At optical frequencies your emissions will be ~0. You can't account for all of the emissions with black body radiation. The effect is probably related, but "simple" it is certainly not.
It's also the convention in every language I've ever heard. Why change something that works?