If a department or a small part of a department decided to break the rules and acquire a printer, they wouldn't bother with one that needs fancy expensive cartridges, they'd just buy a few $20 printers and toss them out.
Acquisition of printers isn't a barrier, because they are so cheap that the exact behaviour you describe is possible.
In fact, if they were violating a 'no printers' rule then replacing the cheap printers regularly would be the best approach, as they would lack technical support if anything went wrong. No problem, we'll just replace it with another cheapie.
If a department wanted to violate the no printers rule they could do it with petty cash, I don't think the cost of a printer is even remotely a barrier here.
Like the U.S. itself? (Trust me, people here know it's pretty lame and nowhere near adequate for the actual cost of living.)
Oh I'm sure many, if not most Americans realise that.
But the US is one of the very few places where it appears to be considered a legitimate political argument to defend the practice of minimum wage jobs by claiming business would otherwise not be able to employ, or that the people in such jobs simply wouldn't be able to work at a reasonable wage.
I agree completely, and the Scandinavian model is one I wish the rest of the world would hurry up and get to.
When companies have complained about Australia having 'Scandinavian labour costs' I've always found that to be a positive indication that even if we're not doing it perfectly, we're doing it a whole lot better than a lot of other places!:)
What I love even more, is when US companies make such complaints, then after cleaning up their act a bit for their Australian operations find that they are actually *even more profitable*.
There are underemployment issues in most economies and there always has been, it's just that 20 years ago those people were completely invisible, and today some people will talk about them.
The situation in Japan is no worse due to automation, the issue Japan does have is an ageing population.
The relatively severe ageing problem Japan will have is certainly an issue, but it has nothing to do with automation, or the assertion that they have high unemployment.
They don't have high unemployment, they have a high number of people unable to work due to age and a low birth rate resulting in a negative population trend.
No, and I mean NO! because central wealth distribution has been shown time and again to disincentivise people from actually doing something useful with their lives. If you earn enough from benefits, and your benefits reduce if you work/produce value, then why do anything useful? And Benefit Dependency is a really nasty pernicious place to be in.
There are a number of places in the world outside the US that show this to be untrue.
Australian benefits are greater than US minimum wage (in most states) at full time. Yet somehow the unemployment in Australia is lower and all those minimum wage jobs seem to be filled.
Perhaps it's a little more complicated than forcing people to work with the threat of poverty?
Not everywhere has the incredible income disparity of the US, so you're making a lot of assumptions that while valid for the US, don't apply to the rest of the world as equally.
Probably the take away from that is that other nations are evidence that there are other ways and perhaps the US should start looking at them.
When I go out for dinner here in Australia, my waiter isn't on minimum wage, we don't have a culture of tipping because they actually get paid enough to live.
No, no one needs to be paid the minimum wage, and the minimum wage conditions of the US are frightening to me and evidence of serious social inequality and damage.
The unemployment benefits in Australia are larger than a full time job on minimum wage in most states of the US. That's how stark the difference is.
The problem is not that 'someone needs to be paid minimum wage'. Because there are nations where the US concept of minimum wage would be considered poverty.
I think you must be talking about a totally different Japan, because the Japanese unemployment is significantly lower than most other developed nations.
Oh don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you there, the "loss of nutrients" stuff is complete bunk, and I am passionately against the whole 'organic' insanity.
I'm just saying, these aren't the only sources, that you can have fresh produce that isn't months old, and it's probably easier to find than you expect.
In fact, for purely economic and social reasons I choose to source most of my food skipping the middle-man in the distribution process.
I'm also under no illusion that every single item is locally sourced or absolutely fresh, but the vast majority is, and it's a real way that I can help support farmers directly.
I just think it's a little inane for people to blame corporations when they still choose to buy their products from the local mega-supermarket. That's their choice, they decided that paying less was more important than quality, sustainability, and the farmers that produce their goods.
I decided differently, and had very little problem finding a way to support my own decisions on this.
Not looking for alternatives is not the same as none existing.
Really? Because most places here have options on the source of the tomatos, or bread.
You want bread baked today, you buy the one that says "baked today". If people are willing to buy 30 day old bread, it's not really the fault of corporations, there are plenty of independent bakeries that could cater to your needs.
See the organic food supply for the same effect in action. Or a local farmers market. etc
It's worth noting that signs are not always visible with sufficient distance to change speed before them. The laws here state that you're supposed to have time after a change of limit sign to adjust speed before you can be fined. In that case it was a suburban area that entered a shopping strip and the signs had recently been changed. It used to be 60 along the whole stretch. The 50 sign was not visible until you were very close to it.
With speeding tickets here you are assumed at fault unless you can prove otherwise, so despite the fact these things had changed and there was no signage to indicate that, and also the sign was not visible until too close, and that my speed was acceptable by the legal distance after the sign, the cost to dispute it without being sure of victory (and costs) was prohibitive for me at the time - this was years ago.
Beside that, I said it was harsh, and believe it was, but I paid the fine and don't gripe about it because it was an unmarked car. In that stretch braking would have been unsafe and I would have done the same with a marked car behind.
Thing is though, marked cars almost never pull you over for that stuff, because they actually have priorities other than revenue. Given that I didn't actually break a law, and they waited until well after I was at the right speed before pulling me over, it was a quota system in play and they were under quota and I just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I object in principle to the unmarked cars, my ticket was just an example of how they are sometimes misused. But even beside that misuse, they are still a waste of police resources, and I objected to them long before my own personal experience with them.
I should actually add a little more to that and point out that I have seen (and also been subject to, but did not speed up) unmarked police cars tailgating on freeways in an attempt to make people speed up to just over the limit and pull them over.
That's not only fairly dangerous, but should say a little more about the intent of the cars when they resort to such tactics.
I do agree with you, though I do think my fine for not hitting the brakes after a sign change was a bit harsh. You're supposed to adjust speed slowly to avoid increased danger. Everyone hitting the breaks at the 50 sign wouldn't be safer at all.
But the point is actually that the cops in such cars are out there to raise revenue.
I'm not complaining about any fines, I used to pay them and get on with life - I now live in the inner city and don't even own a car.
I'm saying these cars are pretty much exclusively for the purpose of raising money, not for making the place safer, as police should be doing. Objecting to unmarked cars because their purpose is counter-productive and a waste of police resources is not the same as whining about a speeding fine.
I object in principle to the laws on speeding, but when you speed you know the possible consequences and must accept them. We have speed cameras all over the place here that get a hell of a lot of people for it. You speed, you pay the fine.
Unmarked police cars are a completely different issue. They do not contribute to safer roads, and do not contribute to a safer society. They are a waste of police power.
It's nice that you've completely ignored the article in question, so I'll try and clarify.
This article is about Australian unmarked police cars, whose only purpose pretty much is to pull over speeding cars.
Because any police car can pull over any car for a random alcohol or drug test, they don't need to be in an unmarked car or have reason (ie, impaired driving). They're legally entitled to do it to anyone, any time, if they are driving a car.
Because in Australia there are no tax/insurance issues, because that's covered by the road authority and police have no authority to even ask you about it.
Because in most states of Australia there is no 10% leeway any more, it's a fixed leeway. You can and do get fined for being 5km/h over the signed limit. I once got fined for being 5km/h over because the road change from a 60 zone to a 50 zone and the unmarked police car behind me thought I didn't adjust me speed fast enough.
In Australia the unmarked cars really are there to catch people speeding, it's their primary purpose.
So perhaps you should pay attention to the context of the story, especially when every other reason you've listed as a purpose for unmarked police cars do not exist in Australia.
This smartphone comes with a number of new features we haven't seen on many Android phones, including improved voice control functionality, new sharing features, and Near Field Communication features. Those include Samsung's new TecTiles, which are programmable NFC tags you can use to control the phone's many features and functions.
I have a Sony Xperia S, released in January, that does these things already and came with several NFC tags. Not exactly new really...
You are incorrect, facebook will not violate the privacy settings on your likes.
You can go to the facebook help centre, and specifically to the information about ads pages, where is specifically addresses the issue you mention with the question:
Why did I see my friend's name or photo attached to an ad?
With Facebook Ads for Pages, Events and Apps, you may see stories about actions your friends have taken on Facebook attached to ads you see. For example, you might see a story about a friend who already likes a Page that you're seeing advertised. Similarly, your friends might see stories about you that relate to the ads they're seeing. Such stories will only be shown to friends, and will adhere to any privacy settings you've set for your account.
So if you set your likes to only me then NO ONE will see your name in those ads. If you set it to a specific group, than only people in that specific group might see them.
On your favourites page you can individually control the visibility settings for the different categories of likes (Music, Book, Movies, etc) and under them is Other pages you like.
So no, your likes don't have to be public at all. You can limit them to only me or a specific group of friends, through to friends of friends or everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
That's exactly the point...
If a department or a small part of a department decided to break the rules and acquire a printer, they wouldn't bother with one that needs fancy expensive cartridges, they'd just buy a few $20 printers and toss them out.
Acquisition of printers isn't a barrier, because they are so cheap that the exact behaviour you describe is possible.
In fact, if they were violating a 'no printers' rule then replacing the cheap printers regularly would be the best approach, as they would lack technical support if anything went wrong.
No problem, we'll just replace it with another cheapie.
Where are you buying your printers?
If a department wanted to violate the no printers rule they could do it with petty cash, I don't think the cost of a printer is even remotely a barrier here.
Oh I'm sure many, if not most Americans realise that.
But the US is one of the very few places where it appears to be considered a legitimate political argument to defend the practice of minimum wage jobs by claiming business would otherwise not be able to employ, or that the people in such jobs simply wouldn't be able to work at a reasonable wage.
I agree completely, and the Scandinavian model is one I wish the rest of the world would hurry up and get to.
When companies have complained about Australia having 'Scandinavian labour costs' I've always found that to be a positive indication that even if we're not doing it perfectly, we're doing it a whole lot better than a lot of other places! :)
What I love even more, is when US companies make such complaints, then after cleaning up their act a bit for their Australian operations find that they are actually *even more profitable*.
http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/franchising/dominos-defies-scandinavian-labour-costs-20110810-1ilog.html
Minimum wages are a sham, we can pay people good money for their time, to do the jobs we don't want to do. :p
Not in British English.
There are underemployment issues in most economies and there always has been, it's just that 20 years ago those people were completely invisible, and today some people will talk about them.
The situation in Japan is no worse due to automation, the issue Japan does have is an ageing population.
The relatively severe ageing problem Japan will have is certainly an issue, but it has nothing to do with automation, or the assertion that they have high unemployment.
They don't have high unemployment, they have a high number of people unable to work due to age and a low birth rate resulting in a negative population trend.
There are a number of places in the world outside the US that show this to be untrue.
Australian benefits are greater than US minimum wage (in most states) at full time. Yet somehow the unemployment in Australia is lower and all those minimum wage jobs seem to be filled.
Perhaps it's a little more complicated than forcing people to work with the threat of poverty?
Not everywhere has the incredible income disparity of the US, so you're making a lot of assumptions that while valid for the US, don't apply to the rest of the world as equally.
Probably the take away from that is that other nations are evidence that there are other ways and perhaps the US should start looking at them.
When I go out for dinner here in Australia, my waiter isn't on minimum wage, we don't have a culture of tipping because they actually get paid enough to live.
No, no one needs to be paid the minimum wage, and the minimum wage conditions of the US are frightening to me and evidence of serious social inequality and damage.
The unemployment benefits in Australia are larger than a full time job on minimum wage in most states of the US. That's how stark the difference is.
The problem is not that 'someone needs to be paid minimum wage'. Because there are nations where the US concept of minimum wage would be considered poverty.
I think you must be talking about a totally different Japan, because the Japanese unemployment is significantly lower than most other developed nations.
First google result, that easy to find...
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/unemployment-rate
So what's the considerable problem?
Oh don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you there, the "loss of nutrients" stuff is complete bunk, and I am passionately against the whole 'organic' insanity.
I'm just saying, these aren't the only sources, that you can have fresh produce that isn't months old, and it's probably easier to find than you expect.
In fact, for purely economic and social reasons I choose to source most of my food skipping the middle-man in the distribution process.
Here's an option I love locally: http://www.aussiefarmers.com.au/sustainable_shopping/
They deliver to my door, on their schedule.
I take what's seasonal, available, and local where possible.
http://www.aussiefarmers.com.au/products/greengrocer.php
I'm also under no illusion that every single item is locally sourced or absolutely fresh, but the vast majority is, and it's a real way that I can help support farmers directly.
I just think it's a little inane for people to blame corporations when they still choose to buy their products from the local mega-supermarket.
That's their choice, they decided that paying less was more important than quality, sustainability, and the farmers that produce their goods.
I decided differently, and had very little problem finding a way to support my own decisions on this.
Not looking for alternatives is not the same as none existing.
Or you could buy seasonal produce instead of eating the same thing all year round. It's also cheaper.
Not at a farmers market, or did you just fail to read my post at all?
Really? Because most places here have options on the source of the tomatos, or bread.
You want bread baked today, you buy the one that says "baked today".
If people are willing to buy 30 day old bread, it's not really the fault of corporations, there are plenty of independent bakeries that could cater to your needs.
See the organic food supply for the same effect in action. Or a local farmers market. etc
I will often give people behind me a brake check too.
However if the car behind you is a police car, they can decide that your sudden braking without cause was in fact reckless driving.
You might win that insurance claim, but you can still lose your licence in the process.
It's worth noting that signs are not always visible with sufficient distance to change speed before them.
The laws here state that you're supposed to have time after a change of limit sign to adjust speed before you can be fined.
In that case it was a suburban area that entered a shopping strip and the signs had recently been changed. It used to be 60 along the whole stretch.
The 50 sign was not visible until you were very close to it.
With speeding tickets here you are assumed at fault unless you can prove otherwise, so despite the fact these things had changed and there was no signage to indicate that, and also the sign was not visible until too close, and that my speed was acceptable by the legal distance after the sign, the cost to dispute it without being sure of victory (and costs) was prohibitive for me at the time - this was years ago.
Beside that, I said it was harsh, and believe it was, but I paid the fine and don't gripe about it because it was an unmarked car. In that stretch braking would have been unsafe and I would have done the same with a marked car behind.
Thing is though, marked cars almost never pull you over for that stuff, because they actually have priorities other than revenue.
Given that I didn't actually break a law, and they waited until well after I was at the right speed before pulling me over, it was a quota system in play and they were under quota and I just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I object in principle to the unmarked cars, my ticket was just an example of how they are sometimes misused. But even beside that misuse, they are still a waste of police resources, and I objected to them long before my own personal experience with them.
I should actually add a little more to that and point out that I have seen (and also been subject to, but did not speed up) unmarked police cars tailgating on freeways in an attempt to make people speed up to just over the limit and pull them over.
That's not only fairly dangerous, but should say a little more about the intent of the cars when they resort to such tactics.
I do agree with you, though I do think my fine for not hitting the brakes after a sign change was a bit harsh.
You're supposed to adjust speed slowly to avoid increased danger. Everyone hitting the breaks at the 50 sign wouldn't be safer at all.
But the point is actually that the cops in such cars are out there to raise revenue.
I'm not complaining about any fines, I used to pay them and get on with life - I now live in the inner city and don't even own a car.
I'm saying these cars are pretty much exclusively for the purpose of raising money, not for making the place safer, as police should be doing.
Objecting to unmarked cars because their purpose is counter-productive and a waste of police resources is not the same as whining about a speeding fine.
I object in principle to the laws on speeding, but when you speed you know the possible consequences and must accept them. We have speed cameras all over the place here that get a hell of a lot of people for it.
You speed, you pay the fine.
Unmarked police cars are a completely different issue. They do not contribute to safer roads, and do not contribute to a safer society. They are a waste of police power.
It's nice that you've completely ignored the article in question, so I'll try and clarify.
This article is about Australian unmarked police cars, whose only purpose pretty much is to pull over speeding cars.
Because any police car can pull over any car for a random alcohol or drug test, they don't need to be in an unmarked car or have reason (ie, impaired driving). They're legally entitled to do it to anyone, any time, if they are driving a car.
Because in Australia there are no tax/insurance issues, because that's covered by the road authority and police have no authority to even ask you about it.
Because in most states of Australia there is no 10% leeway any more, it's a fixed leeway. You can and do get fined for being 5km/h over the signed limit. I once got fined for being 5km/h over because the road change from a 60 zone to a 50 zone and the unmarked police car behind me thought I didn't adjust me speed fast enough.
In Australia the unmarked cars really are there to catch people speeding, it's their primary purpose.
So perhaps you should pay attention to the context of the story, especially when every other reason you've listed as a purpose for unmarked police cars do not exist in Australia.
Though I didn't know about the Transformer (and it looks pretty cool), I'd call that more of a dock. :)
Is this another case of Apple copying what Sony is doing, but publicising it better?
http://www.xperiablog.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Xperia-Tablet_13.jpg
Not at all!
Having them wounded and limping to the finish will make the race take significantly longer!
I have a Sony Xperia S, released in January, that does these things already and came with several NFC tags.
Not exactly new really...
No they have not. Research has continued to show that genetic factors overwhelm any other possibility.
It has nothing to do with pollution, and is nothing like cancer at all.
There is no epidemic, there's just increasing awareness and better diagnosis.
You are incorrect, facebook will not violate the privacy settings on your likes.
You can go to the facebook help centre, and specifically to the information about ads pages, where is specifically addresses the issue you mention with the question:
Why did I see my friend's name or photo attached to an ad?
So if you set your likes to only me then NO ONE will see your name in those ads.
If you set it to a specific group, than only people in that specific group might see them.
You can set it to not display your likes.
On your favourites page you can individually control the visibility settings for the different categories of likes (Music, Book, Movies, etc) and under them is Other pages you like.
So no, your likes don't have to be public at all.
You can limit them to only me or a specific group of friends, through to friends of friends or everyone.