The very term "mom-and-pop" is meant to evoke emotional disapproval of whatever it is that threatens the obsoletion. And, because the only way to protect a business from being obsoleted by another business in a free market is via a government regulation, this is an appeal to the government...
Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway & Belgium all thank you for your good wishes.
They sure need them, because their Collectivism is killing them and their performance is pathetic. For just one sign, consider the fact, that these countries (with the possible exception of Finland) haven't been bombed/destroyed in the WW2. Which means, their standards of living ought to be, if Socialism really was so grand, well above that of the US. It is not — not even in Norway, for all their vast oil exports propping up the GDP.
True. Socialism is Communism-lite. The difference is merely in the degree. The (glorious) Collective is more important and trumps the Individual. And, as Karl Marx taught us, Socialism is merely a stepping stone to Communism.
Socialism accepts private ownership of anything, including the means of production.
Nope, not the actual Karl Marx' version of it. But, whether the means of production are ostensibly private owned or in outright government possession is of no importance — a distinction without difference — when the government can control any aspect of the production it chooses to. And it can, through that vastly giant loophole of "sensible regulations" you allow it to have.
[...] you fear socialists are going to seize the means of production from you? It doesn't work like that.
It works exactly like that. There is not argument for nationalizing public education, that can not also be made — indeed, is already made — for nationalizing public health care, or public housing, or public Internet service provision, public science, music and other arts.
Some countries are further along down this path — to their patently obvious detriment — than others. Like I said, a matter of degree, a quantitative rather than qualitative difference. The greater the share of the GDP, that is spent by the government, the greater the degree of Collectivism in the country...
The worst you have to fear are sensible regulations
Who the fook are you to "sensibly regulate", what I am doing in my house or what sort of thing I sell to willing buyers?
Oohh, scary.
Yes, it is awfully scary, that despite being the most murderous school of thought known to humanity, the branches of Collectivism (Fascism, Socialism, Communism) continue to appear attractive to a substantial proportion of population... You'd be appalled to meet an asshole in a KKK-outfit, but a far more dangerous asshole in a Che Guevara T-shirt hardly raises an eyebrow. Indeed, I suspect, I may be conversing with one on Slashdot right now...
The corporate CxOs are NOT the victim in this scenario.
The point I fully agreed — and continue to agree — with. In this case.
Executives hold responsibility and deserve what they are paid or they don't know what is going on and they are overpaid.
You've prevailed over a strawman you yourself erected. Congratulations.
The CxOs were the benefactors of the malfeasance.
What malfeasance? The only indication we have of them having done anything wrong so far is the fact, their database was stolen. You may as well denounce a burglarized homeowner for having insufficiently strong walls.
Calling them rape victim is idiotic.
Which is, probably, why I didn't call them that. What I said was that blaming a victim of a crime for it simply on the basis the crime took place is a dangerous line of thinking — because some times such victims are completely innocent. Not this time. But some times. Get it?
The person I was replying to stated, essentially, that the very fact of the breach proves — not "suggests", but proves — that the defensive measures were insufficient.
No. We can claim that they did not prevent the breach, but they may well have delayed it or made it more difficult.
We have no idea...
That said, they clearly don't suffice.
Not "clear" at all. When a tank's hull is breached by an enemy's shell, is it because the armor was too weak, or because it was too heavy for the tank to move faster? Which of the aspects should be improved — at the expense of the other?
The executives and management should be held personally responsible
Though I agree in this case, this is a dangerous line of thinking — not entirely unlike blaming a rape victim for wearing too short a skirt...
Calling social security or unemployment part of the federal budget is disingenuous
No, it is not — because people do not pay into those "pools" voluntarily. Whatever you call them, they are taxes. Also, the actual Unemployment Insurance schemes are operated by the States — what propping they get from Federal budget is just that, a mandatory charity.
But, hey, let's take the Social Security and Unemployment out of it. That still leaves "Medicare and general health spending", at 28% or nearly twice the defense spending — certainly more than that if combined with the agricultural subsidies and other crap from the last item (itself 14% or nearly the same as military).
Oh, and then realize, that while States spend nothing on military, they do spend on the mandatory charity. So the total share of such charity in taxes is substantially more than twice the military, likely thrice more.
Now note, that Immerman claimed, that the mandatory charity is, I quote, "a drop in the bucket" of the defense spending. Must be a very non-Newtonian and non-Euclidian bucket if 3/4 of it is called "a drop" compared to 1/4.
Spending on Social Security, unemployment, and labor in 2016 was about 37%
Medicare and general health spending was about 28% of all outlays
Spending on national defense was about 15%
All other programs (agriculture, energy, commerce and housing credit, community and regional development, etc.) made up approximately 14%
To be more wrong than you are, one would've have to claim, the Moon is made of cheese...
Moreover, unlike any charity, maintaining capable military is, actually, a government's responsibility explicitly written in the Constitution while everything else is wrong:
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
— James Madison
and nobody else will help you, either.
TFA is exactly about people helping others — saving their lives. So, you are wrong once again... How do you function day to day — or do you have a minder or something?
What's the point of rescuing those people who [...]
That's a good question. Fortunately, because the rescuers are volunteers, we do not have to answer it. If they feel like helping people, it is up to them — even if it can be argued, that they are rescuing fools, who'd be better off dead.
And then we can revisit the mandatory charity of providing health care to the fools, who haven't bothered procuring health insurance in advance, school-lunches for kids, whose parents can't afford them, etc. Whoever feels those people should be helped, is welcome to do that on their own — without the government confiscating money at the point of weapon from others.
Point was, the existing broadcast tech can carry the frequencies at the edge or even slightly beyond human hearing.
Can it be exploited? Of course, it can...
And of course, then suddenly hearing your phone in your pocket confirming "Okay, confirming 100'000$ purchase for 'ScamBot' article on alibaba"
What if you left it charging, while you take a shower? "Honey, your phone was saying something, not sure what..."
What if it is not a purchase, but simply opening a URL — to identify you and, maybe, offer you some location-specific coupon while you simply walk by a store? Possibilities are numerous, not all of them evil, but all of them worrying...
For better or worse, it has long been established, that False Advertising is not protected by the Amendment.
Most social media companies promise — explicitly or implicitly — interaction with other people. Or, when it is with businesses or other organizations, the accounts are clearly marked as such — or are supposed to be under the terms and conditions of the usage. For example, this line from Facebook's Terms:
You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.
implicitly promises, that the company will fight people/entities lying...
A company's failure to enforce such terms should be interpreted as a failure to deliver the service it promised its advertisers and other users. It can — and should — be punished for the breach. No special laws are necessary even — we already have them...
Blame Trump — if it weren't for his reversing of Obama's hurricane-ban...
But let's not jump to conclusions — most hurricanes, earthquakes, and other so called "disasters" are entirely peaceful and we should not judge all of them by the effects of the few.
Exactly. If someone is exploiting this in my house
What if a shop exploits it by commanding digital assistants of the passersby to open the special web-site or tweeting @ a special account — and entering whatever information the assistant knows, but the attacker does not (yet)?
Even if little such information exists, the attacker's ability to highjack the browser and show coupons/specials/etc. would a worrying development — and that's the most benign thing I can think of...
It simply did not consider the masses of the people in a direct fashion.
It does not have to be a referendum — I am, indeed, quite happy to live in a Republic, rather than a Democracy — but a good majority of States have to accept the change.
There was no "revolution" in between adopting the ban on alcohol and the ban narcotics. It was a gradual change — I'd be satisfied with just as gradual a change in the opposite direction.
since there was no official sanction by the manager
Three such complaints, however frivolous, and the manager has to escalate the matter to HR. The HR then begins to look into means and ways to get rid of the trouble — me.
This is why I don't see you as a victim.
Though I'm not (yet?) a victim of undue firing, I'm already a victim of undue reprimand.
Now, on the one hand, it is the company's right to fire anybody for any reason — or without a reason at all. On the other hand, they may be forced to do it on pain of a governmental investigation triggered by that same Illiberal complaining of "hostile work environment".
That is, we already have laws in place, which — contrary to the First Amendment — allow the government to control, even if indirectly, what is said. This is why I chose to complain about it publicly...
Discussing religion in the work setting is dubious. Why would you want to do that anyway?
Dubious or not, the statement of fact is not harassment. You are blaming the victim.
even though no one on our team is a Muslim.
I'm not sure this makes the situation much better.
Only a follower of a religion can claim being harassed, when the religion is portrayed negatively. Thus, there being no such followers within earshot may not make it "better", but it certainly means, no harassment has taken place.
If all white co-workers were discussing dem-lazy-ni**ers, management might still find it problematic.
They may find it "problematic" — a vague term. But it is not harassment, which is fairly well-defined.
Whether an executive action is legal is a different standard than whether an executive action is moral or wise.
And yet, it is the legality of President Obama's earlier executive order, that the OP was talking about. Not its wisdom or morality, but the legality.
Do you really want to deport them?
I do not want to. Myself a first-generation immigrant, I do not blame people for wanting to come to this wonderful country — legally or otherwise. But I also recognize the country's right to decide, who to take — and to enforce the decision. We do not owe the foreigners — including ones brought here at too young an age — anything.
On a side-note, our policies on the subject are — Trump or not — among the most lenient in the developed world.
This is what you get when you live by the Executive Decision
You are right. But it is even worse than that, actually. Because of vagueness of the Constitution, certain wide-ranging and life-altering laws have passed without proper consent of the governed.
And I'm not just talking about Obamacare... Things like military draft, "civil rights", drug prohibitions, "war on poverty", "assault weapons" ban should all have been done (or not done) as Constitutional Amendments — not mere federal laws.
Alcohol-prohibition may have been a bad idea, but we all decided to attempt it — and then reversed the decision. There is no reason, ban on marijuana and other drugs shouldn't have been implemented (or not) through the same mechanism.
The minute details of enforcement/implementation could've been left to Congress, but the general intent — like do we want mandatory conscription at all, or should we limit the breadth of the Second Amendment — should've been decided by the entire nation.
As things stand, Congress supplants the nation the same way President supplants Congress... The decision-making needs to be pushed back a notch.
DACA could be considered an executive action to not enforce an immigration law.
In that case, there should be no problem whatsoever with Trump reversing the predecessor's executive action with one of his own — he is the President now with the same discretion.
Moreover, because Trump is reducing the divergence from the actual laws of the land, his action is an improvement. Right?
Finland will introduce legislation next year to phase out coal and increase carbon taxes
This reminds me, how the Swiss city of Davos (yes, that Davos), contributes to the Global Warming/pollution/whatever fight: by banning gas stations... I can't find any references to the ban online to link here — you'll just have to visit it to see for yourself.
Yep, the skiing is great, but to fill up your car, you'll have to drive to a neighboring town.
Slashdot Mirror
The very term "mom-and-pop" is meant to evoke emotional disapproval of whatever it is that threatens the obsoletion. And, because the only way to protect a business from being obsoleted by another business in a free market is via a government regulation, this is an appeal to the government...
They sure need them, because their Collectivism is killing them and their performance is pathetic. For just one sign, consider the fact, that these countries (with the possible exception of Finland) haven't been bombed/destroyed in the WW2. Which means, their standards of living ought to be, if Socialism really was so grand, well above that of the US. It is not — not even in Norway, for all their vast oil exports propping up the GDP.
And that's despite their spending much less on military — to the point, the otherwise decrepit Russia can overrun them in a matter of weeks.
True. Socialism is Communism-lite. The difference is merely in the degree. The (glorious) Collective is more important and trumps the Individual. And, as Karl Marx taught us, Socialism is merely a stepping stone to Communism.
Nope, not the actual Karl Marx' version of it. But, whether the means of production are ostensibly private owned or in outright government possession is of no importance — a distinction without difference — when the government can control any aspect of the production it chooses to. And it can, through that vastly giant loophole of "sensible regulations" you allow it to have.
It works exactly like that. There is not argument for nationalizing public education, that can not also be made — indeed, is already made — for nationalizing public health care, or public housing, or public Internet service provision, public science, music and other arts.
Some countries are further along down this path — to their patently obvious detriment — than others. Like I said, a matter of degree, a quantitative rather than qualitative difference. The greater the share of the GDP, that is spent by the government, the greater the degree of Collectivism in the country...
Who the fook are you to "sensibly regulate", what I am doing in my house or what sort of thing I sell to willing buyers?
Yes, it is awfully scary, that despite being the most murderous school of thought known to humanity, the branches of Collectivism (Fascism, Socialism, Communism) continue to appear attractive to a substantial proportion of population... You'd be appalled to meet an asshole in a KKK-outfit, but a far more dangerous asshole in a Che Guevara T-shirt hardly raises an eyebrow. Indeed, I suspect, I may be conversing with one on Slashdot right now...
The point I fully agreed — and continue to agree — with. In this case.
You've prevailed over a strawman you yourself erected. Congratulations.
What malfeasance? The only indication we have of them having done anything wrong so far is the fact, their database was stolen. You may as well denounce a burglarized homeowner for having insufficiently strong walls.
Which is, probably, why I didn't call them that. What I said was that blaming a victim of a crime for it simply on the basis the crime took place is a dangerous line of thinking — because some times such victims are completely innocent. Not this time. But some times. Get it?
The person I was replying to stated, essentially, that the very fact of the breach proves — not "suggests", but proves — that the defensive measures were insufficient.
We have no idea...
Not "clear" at all. When a tank's hull is breached by an enemy's shell, is it because the armor was too weak, or because it was too heavy for the tank to move faster? Which of the aspects should be improved — at the expense of the other?
Though I agree in this case, this is a dangerous line of thinking — not entirely unlike blaming a rape victim for wearing too short a skirt...
Maybe. But what we can claim with certainty is that the existing regulations did not help prevent the breach...
No, it is not — because people do not pay into those "pools" voluntarily. Whatever you call them, they are taxes. Also, the actual Unemployment Insurance schemes are operated by the States — what propping they get from Federal budget is just that, a mandatory charity.
But, hey, let's take the Social Security and Unemployment out of it. That still leaves "Medicare and general health spending", at 28% or nearly twice the defense spending — certainly more than that if combined with the agricultural subsidies and other crap from the last item (itself 14% or nearly the same as military).
Oh, and then realize, that while States spend nothing on military, they do spend on the mandatory charity. So the total share of such charity in taxes is substantially more than twice the military, likely thrice more.
Now note, that Immerman claimed, that the mandatory charity is, I quote, "a drop in the bucket" of the defense spending. Must be a very non-Newtonian and non-Euclidian bucket if 3/4 of it is called "a drop" compared to 1/4.
He is still wrong, and now so are you...
What's the connection?
Are you delusional or are you lying? Here is the 2016's budget, for example:
To be more wrong than you are, one would've have to claim, the Moon is made of cheese...
Moreover, unlike any charity, maintaining capable military is, actually, a government's responsibility explicitly written in the Constitution while everything else is wrong:
TFA is exactly about people helping others — saving their lives. So, you are wrong once again... How do you function day to day — or do you have a minder or something?
That's a good question. Fortunately, because the rescuers are volunteers, we do not have to answer it. If they feel like helping people, it is up to them — even if it can be argued, that they are rescuing fools, who'd be better off dead.
And then we can revisit the mandatory charity of providing health care to the fools, who haven't bothered procuring health insurance in advance, school-lunches for kids, whose parents can't afford them, etc. Whoever feels those people should be helped, is welcome to do that on their own — without the government confiscating money at the point of weapon from others.
Trump is at fault — blame his recklessly reversing Obama's Executive Order banning hurricanes.
And then there are the well-meaning witches seeking to end Trump's Presidency ASAP — well-meaning, but clumsy and unprofessional, miscasting their spells...
Point was, the existing broadcast tech can carry the frequencies at the edge or even slightly beyond human hearing.
Can it be exploited? Of course, it can...
What if you left it charging, while you take a shower? "Honey, your phone was saying something, not sure what..."
What if it is not a purchase, but simply opening a URL — to identify you and, maybe, offer you some location-specific coupon while you simply walk by a store? Possibilities are numerous, not all of them evil, but all of them worrying...
For better or worse, it has long been established, that False Advertising is not protected by the Amendment.
Most social media companies promise — explicitly or implicitly — interaction with other people. Or, when it is with businesses or other organizations, the accounts are clearly marked as such — or are supposed to be under the terms and conditions of the usage. For example, this line from Facebook's Terms:
implicitly promises, that the company will fight people/entities lying...
A company's failure to enforce such terms should be interpreted as a failure to deliver the service it promised its advertisers and other users. It can — and should — be punished for the breach. No special laws are necessary even — we already have them...
Blame Trump — if it weren't for his reversing of Obama's hurricane-ban...
But let's not jump to conclusions — most hurricanes, earthquakes, and other so called "disasters" are entirely peaceful and we should not judge all of them by the effects of the few.
What if a shop exploits it by commanding digital assistants of the passersby to open the special web-site or tweeting @ a special account — and entering whatever information the assistant knows, but the attacker does not (yet)?
Even if little such information exists, the attacker's ability to highjack the browser and show coupons/specials/etc. would a worrying development — and that's the most benign thing I can think of...
People claiming it can not be done should not interrupt people already doing it. Or something...
It does not have to be a referendum — I am, indeed, quite happy to live in a Republic, rather than a Democracy — but a good majority of States have to accept the change.
No, it was not.
Could you cite the 12+ Amendment-numbers, please?
The Amendment was ratified in accordance with the Constitution.
There was no "revolution" in between adopting the ban on alcohol and the ban narcotics. It was a gradual change — I'd be satisfied with just as gradual a change in the opposite direction.
Three such complaints, however frivolous, and the manager has to escalate the matter to HR. The HR then begins to look into means and ways to get rid of the trouble — me.
Though I'm not (yet?) a victim of undue firing, I'm already a victim of undue reprimand.
Now, on the one hand, it is the company's right to fire anybody for any reason — or without a reason at all. On the other hand, they may be forced to do it on pain of a governmental investigation triggered by that same Illiberal complaining of "hostile work environment".
That is, we already have laws in place, which — contrary to the First Amendment — allow the government to control, even if indirectly, what is said. This is why I chose to complain about it publicly...
Dubious or not, the statement of fact is not harassment. You are blaming the victim.
Only a follower of a religion can claim being harassed, when the religion is portrayed negatively. Thus, there being no such followers within earshot may not make it "better", but it certainly means, no harassment has taken place.
They may find it "problematic" — a vague term. But it is not harassment, which is fairly well-defined.
A co-worker has complained to our manager, when I pointed a similar fact out during a conversation.
The manager then reprimanded me pointing out the company's policy against "harassment" — even though no one on our team is a Muslim.
And yet, it is the legality of President Obama's earlier executive order, that the OP was talking about. Not its wisdom or morality, but the legality.
I do not want to. Myself a first-generation immigrant, I do not blame people for wanting to come to this wonderful country — legally or otherwise. But I also recognize the country's right to decide, who to take — and to enforce the decision. We do not owe the foreigners — including ones brought here at too young an age — anything.
On a side-note, our policies on the subject are — Trump or not — among the most lenient in the developed world.
You are right. But it is even worse than that, actually. Because of vagueness of the Constitution, certain wide-ranging and life-altering laws have passed without proper consent of the governed.
And I'm not just talking about Obamacare... Things like military draft, "civil rights", drug prohibitions, "war on poverty", "assault weapons" ban should all have been done (or not done) as Constitutional Amendments — not mere federal laws.
Alcohol-prohibition may have been a bad idea, but we all decided to attempt it — and then reversed the decision. There is no reason, ban on marijuana and other drugs shouldn't have been implemented (or not) through the same mechanism.
The minute details of enforcement/implementation could've been left to Congress, but the general intent — like do we want mandatory conscription at all, or should we limit the breadth of the Second Amendment — should've been decided by the entire nation.
As things stand, Congress supplants the nation the same way President supplants Congress... The decision-making needs to be pushed back a notch.
Not true. Even if he does not, he'd still be reducing the divergence from the law — even if not to the full extent of how some people would like.
One's "prosecutorial discretion" is another's "selective enforcement"... Be careful, what you wish for (or defend).
In that case, there should be no problem whatsoever with Trump reversing the predecessor's executive action with one of his own — he is the President now with the same discretion.
Moreover, because Trump is reducing the divergence from the actual laws of the land, his action is an improvement. Right?
Meanwhile in the US, the Federal Government was forcing banks to close/freeze accounts of some businesses. Ah, and the taxmen are empowered to confiscate personal accounts on mere suspicion of wrong-doing.
This reminds me, how the Swiss city of Davos (yes, that Davos), contributes to the Global Warming/pollution/whatever fight: by banning gas stations... I can't find any references to the ban online to link here — you'll just have to visit it to see for yourself.
Yep, the skiing is great, but to fill up your car, you'll have to drive to a neighboring town.