My only hope is that if he ever really goes down, he'll take a few politicians down with him. He's enough of a scumbag to do it if he ever really loses his sway.
Which is, of course, why it's never going to happen.
Mozilla has employees in multiple locations, some of which have lower cost of living than Silicon Valley.
Tha'ts very interesting, but the locations of all of the positions given on the site are listed right next to them - Mountain View, California. I'm not sure where the site gets it's data, but you're right that it's clear that they don't have information on every employee. I suspect that this is self-reported information.
Given that I didn't ask why different people are paid different amounts, your question is a nonsequiter. I wrote what I did in the hope that a reader (you) would be able to do a modicum of interpretation, but let me spell it out: the assertion that a high cost of living justifies a 10x salary increase over another employee is invalid when both people are living in the same place and subject to the same cost of living. Additionally, 600k is far more than a person, or family, needs to live anywhere on earth - cost of living is clearly not a factor in this case.
As for whether 600k is the correct salary, let's turn back to the data we have: with some variation a software engineer at Mozilla is making 75k, and a senior software engineer is making 110k. That's increased compensation presumably based on greater experience and responsibility. Most people would likely agree that a 45% increase in salary is probably not outrageous under the circumstances, regardless of whether they feel that the absolute values are right for those jobs.
Not you, apparently. You're saying that if a software engineer is making 75k, then a senior software engineer at the same company should be making something like 350k. Right? Because they live in the bay area? Or something? Maybe I'm being too subtle again.
This depends on your experience with the employer - my last boss was bad enough that grounds for a lawsuit were obvious to everyone else involved at the organization. When I got laid off I demanded a change to the severance contract and got it. It wasn't extra money that I was asking for, but they got the lawyers involved and ultimately were sufficiently aware of the problem that they didn't fight me on it.
If you're getting laid off because you're incompetent or because the company is shrinking then no, you shouldn't be pushing for extra money. You have no leverage in that case.
Mostly true, but Exosquad remains... wait. Exosquad was 90s, wasn't it? So was Reboot. Hm.
All right, here's an obscure one: Kid Video. It's definitely campy, but I watched a few episodes recently and was really surprised that I think I like it more now than I did back then.
I'd think a better solution would be to simply eliminate sales tax all together, in all its forms. Make up the revenue with income or property taxes.
Aside from the obvious benefit of eliminating this issue of taxing interstate (and internet) commerce and non-physical things, there are some subtle advantages. For example: part of the reason that certain services (telecommunications) are able to get away with tacking on un-advertised fees is because Americans are accustomed to paying more than the price tag indicates. Someone who knows exactly how much a thing costs is a better informed consumer, can make better decisions, and this will ultimately lead to a better functioning marketplace.
The Australian government has been gunning for Wikileaks longer than the Americans, since the March 2009 leak of the Australian internet blacklist. It's no surprise that they're not sticking up for Assange.
So what message exactly is there left that shouldn't be dismissed
All of it, the only fabricated parts were his own experiences. Yes, it's true that he falsely claimed to talk to people who were poisoned. But people were poisoned, even if he didn't talk to them himself.
Borrowing from another poster, here's the NYT article covering basically all the same stuff. They talk about n-hexane on page five:
This guy is clearly a liar and is being slimy in all of his responses... Even he admits it wasn't the truth now:
Did you read your own quote?
MD: I met workers in, um, Hong Kong, going to Apple protests who had not been poisoned by hexane but had known people who had been, and it was a constant conversation among those workers.
His presentation was wrong in a lot of ways, but none of the problems that he's raised were unfactual. The main problem with how he did this is that he's provided an excuse for people to dismiss the issues that he's raised. That's shameful, but it's important not to dismiss the message for the messenger.
Yeah, I'm also confused. The funny measurement that OPERA got has already been explained, there's nothing left to debunk anymore. This is not a blow to anyone's results.
You measure it against itself. Use your clock to measure the duration of a repeating event. The event itself is unlikely to be perfectly regular, but if the irregularity of the event is known than this is unimportant, you can compensate for that. Now look at the deviation of your measurements - if the deviation is small then the clock is accurate.
Look you're welcome to your opinion about the value of modern works but you're way off on this skill business, both qualitatively and chronologically - art hasn't been solely about skill since the middle ages. Da Vinci, incidentally, was one of the artists behind the push for painting and sculpting to be recognized as a liberal art. I'll link to a little non-exhaustive summary:
A lot of people criticize "modern art" as though it were a unified body and I think that this low opinion mostly just comes from the fact that the newest works have not yet been through the full vetting process. In a museum, modern works are always going to be, on average, of less merit than older works simply because the older works that you see in a museum are those which have stood the test of time and been judged worth displaying. Over time, works which are current right now will be culled and those of real value (they do exist!) will remain.
If you take this seriously, you really should become an physically fit, teetotal, non-smoking, asexual vegetarian with an ideal BMI.
I'm trying to read what you wrote in a sarcastic tone of voice, because that seems to be how you wrote it, but... sexual activity doesn't significantly impact your cancer risk, assuming you take appropriate precautions, but the rest is just good advice. Are you mocking people who are physically fit?
If we are concerned with the poor's access to contraception, then address that specifically... but please don't tell me that we need to do this to help the poor, because it doesn't help them at all.
What? Are you arguing that requiring insurance to cover contraception does not help the poor because the poor don't have insurance? If that's the case, then you need to know that this whole discussion is about the insurance requirements made by the Affordable Care Act, which mandates health insurance coverage for all Americans, rich and poor. So they may not have insurance right now, but they will once all of this goes into effect.
In fact, the poor are the ones most heavily impacted by this debate - the recurring cost of contraception may not seem like much of a burden to someone in the middle or upper class, but it most certainly is for someone who's just scraping by.
It's rhetoric - Issa is a republican congressman trying to smear Obama. He's right in this case, but Issa is by no means a champion of virtue in general.
The only question is, are you going to pay for a very expensive birth, and the social problems that come from people with few resourses having large families? Or are you going to pay for the birth control that will save you a lot of money in the long run?
No, you only pay in the first case, not the second. Contraception is entirely covered by the insurance company (at no cost to you), and it doesn't even raise your premiums because, as you say, it saves the insurance company money in the long term.
Look, if your point is that this is not as devastating as some other health insurance related problems then you're right - the ability for insurance companies to refuse clients is catastrophic for many people, as an example. Paying for contraception is not an insurmountable barrier but when the insurance company says "We'll cover contraception for your students for free" and the university (or Catholic employer) says "No, we won't allow that," that's intruding on something that is none of the university's business, regardless of how they may feel about the practice.
When they say that they want parents involved, they mean at home. More than anything else, a child's education is dependent on parental involvement at home - reading to them, helping them with their homework, encouraging them to take school seriously, etc.
Curriculum decisions like what you describe are a long and intensely bureaucratic process. If you live in a smaller town with a school district of manageable size there's a small chance that they might listen to you but it would take years to implement anything new and parents are generally only interested in what's happening to their own children right now. They usually don't care about what happens to other people's children down the road.
As for "new math" - memorizing multiplication tables imparts no understanding. I'm not familiar with "new fractions" but let me point out that most children hate math and treating it as an endlessly repetitious chore to be memorized is a large part of the reason why.
Actually, let me correct myself here - a fine is not enough. Under the DMCA an individual who misrepresents themselves the way that Rumblefish has in this case would be guilty of perjury. No less should be true for a company doing the same.
It's a stupid mistake of an automated algorithm. You can blame google for this, but essentially it's a more complex version of the old "sudo nohup rm -Rf/" paste. Apparently google seems to think that the uploaded videos can't be watched by actual people, that'd be too pricey. So if you want to have a free youtube, mistakes like this will be part of the experience. Imho, they're doing pretty fucking well at this.
The problem with the birdsong issue was not that the automated system picked it up, it was that the video poster protested the take down, Rumblefish reviewed the claim and still declared themselves to be the holder of the birdsong copyright:
You're right that Google isn't the party to really get mad at here, the problem is that there is no penalty for this kind of fraudulent claim by a copyright holder. A fine, at the least, would be appropriate.
Deportation is not a trivial punishment, that's huge. For many people a limited prison sentence would be preferable.
Regardless, whether or not this is deserving of punishment should really depend on what he did with the recording after it was made - it's not a hate crime if he just quietly deletes it. The reason why the roommate killed himself isn't given in the summary, so none of us actually knows what's going on here. Nor will we ever, unless someone comes along and writes another summary.
In what way is that commercial related to this story, and why was that included in the summary? Is it the fact that teenagers have sex? Or that people have roommates? Or that computers... exist?
I know people have been making Tannin pills to prevent from having to drink wine...
No one has to drink wine, some people choose to take dietary supplements because they think it will make them healthier. As for meat being replaced by "meat" - there will be no surprises due to loss of nutrients, there have been perfectly healthy vegetarians for millenia. There will, however, certainly be people making "meat nutrient replacement pills" for the same crowd who buys the Tannin pills. Some people and their money are easily parted.
Slashdot Mirror
My only hope is that if he ever really goes down, he'll take a few politicians down with him. He's enough of a scumbag to do it if he ever really loses his sway.
Which is, of course, why it's never going to happen.
Mozilla has employees in multiple locations, some of which have lower cost of living than Silicon Valley.
Tha'ts very interesting, but the locations of all of the positions given on the site are listed right next to them - Mountain View, California. I'm not sure where the site gets it's data, but you're right that it's clear that they don't have information on every employee. I suspect that this is self-reported information.
Given that I didn't ask why different people are paid different amounts, your question is a nonsequiter. I wrote what I did in the hope that a reader (you) would be able to do a modicum of interpretation, but let me spell it out: the assertion that a high cost of living justifies a 10x salary increase over another employee is invalid when both people are living in the same place and subject to the same cost of living. Additionally, 600k is far more than a person, or family, needs to live anywhere on earth - cost of living is clearly not a factor in this case.
As for whether 600k is the correct salary, let's turn back to the data we have: with some variation a software engineer at Mozilla is making 75k, and a senior software engineer is making 110k. That's increased compensation presumably based on greater experience and responsibility. Most people would likely agree that a 45% increase in salary is probably not outrageous under the circumstances, regardless of whether they feel that the absolute values are right for those jobs.
Not you, apparently. You're saying that if a software engineer is making 75k, then a senior software engineer at the same company should be making something like 350k. Right? Because they live in the bay area? Or something? Maybe I'm being too subtle again.
So... If $100k isn't enough, then how are the rest of Mozilla's employees getting by with a median income of only $86k?
http://www.salarylist.com/company/Mozilla-Salary.htm
This is well said. If I had mod points I'd give them to you.
This depends on your experience with the employer - my last boss was bad enough that grounds for a lawsuit were obvious to everyone else involved at the organization. When I got laid off I demanded a change to the severance contract and got it. It wasn't extra money that I was asking for, but they got the lawyers involved and ultimately were sufficiently aware of the problem that they didn't fight me on it.
If you're getting laid off because you're incompetent or because the company is shrinking then no, you shouldn't be pushing for extra money. You have no leverage in that case.
Mostly true, but Exosquad remains... wait. Exosquad was 90s, wasn't it? So was Reboot. Hm.
All right, here's an obscure one: Kid Video. It's definitely campy, but I watched a few episodes recently and was really surprised that I think I like it more now than I did back then.
I'd think a better solution would be to simply eliminate sales tax all together, in all its forms. Make up the revenue with income or property taxes.
Aside from the obvious benefit of eliminating this issue of taxing interstate (and internet) commerce and non-physical things, there are some subtle advantages. For example: part of the reason that certain services (telecommunications) are able to get away with tacking on un-advertised fees is because Americans are accustomed to paying more than the price tag indicates. Someone who knows exactly how much a thing costs is a better informed consumer, can make better decisions, and this will ultimately lead to a better functioning marketplace.
The Australian government has been gunning for Wikileaks longer than the Americans, since the March 2009 leak of the Australian internet blacklist. It's no surprise that they're not sticking up for Assange.
So what message exactly is there left that shouldn't be dismissed
All of it, the only fabricated parts were his own experiences. Yes, it's true that he falsely claimed to talk to people who were poisoned. But people were poisoned, even if he didn't talk to them himself.
Borrowing from another poster, here's the NYT article covering basically all the same stuff. They talk about n-hexane on page five:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/business/ieconomy-apples-ipad-and-the-human-costs-for-workers-in-china.html?_r=1
This guy is clearly a liar and is being slimy in all of his responses... Even he admits it wasn't the truth now:
Did you read your own quote?
MD: I met workers in, um, Hong Kong, going to Apple protests who had not been poisoned by hexane but had known people who had been, and it was a constant conversation among those workers.
His presentation was wrong in a lot of ways, but none of the problems that he's raised were unfactual. The main problem with how he did this is that he's provided an excuse for people to dismiss the issues that he's raised. That's shameful, but it's important not to dismiss the message for the messenger.
Yeah, I'm also confused. The funny measurement that OPERA got has already been explained, there's nothing left to debunk anymore. This is not a blow to anyone's results.
You measure it against itself. Use your clock to measure the duration of a repeating event. The event itself is unlikely to be perfectly regular, but if the irregularity of the event is known than this is unimportant, you can compensate for that. Now look at the deviation of your measurements - if the deviation is small then the clock is accurate.
Look you're welcome to your opinion about the value of modern works but you're way off on this skill business, both qualitatively and chronologically - art hasn't been solely about skill since the middle ages. Da Vinci, incidentally, was one of the artists behind the push for painting and sculpting to be recognized as a liberal art. I'll link to a little non-exhaustive summary:
http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/artartists/renaissance.html
A lot of people criticize "modern art" as though it were a unified body and I think that this low opinion mostly just comes from the fact that the newest works have not yet been through the full vetting process. In a museum, modern works are always going to be, on average, of less merit than older works simply because the older works that you see in a museum are those which have stood the test of time and been judged worth displaying. Over time, works which are current right now will be culled and those of real value (they do exist!) will remain.
If you take this seriously, you really should become an physically fit, teetotal, non-smoking, asexual vegetarian with an ideal BMI.
I'm trying to read what you wrote in a sarcastic tone of voice, because that seems to be how you wrote it, but... sexual activity doesn't significantly impact your cancer risk, assuming you take appropriate precautions, but the rest is just good advice. Are you mocking people who are physically fit?
If we are concerned with the poor's access to contraception, then address that specifically... but please don't tell me that we need to do this to help the poor, because it doesn't help them at all.
What? Are you arguing that requiring insurance to cover contraception does not help the poor because the poor don't have insurance? If that's the case, then you need to know that this whole discussion is about the insurance requirements made by the Affordable Care Act, which mandates health insurance coverage for all Americans, rich and poor. So they may not have insurance right now, but they will once all of this goes into effect.
In fact, the poor are the ones most heavily impacted by this debate - the recurring cost of contraception may not seem like much of a burden to someone in the middle or upper class, but it most certainly is for someone who's just scraping by.
It's rhetoric - Issa is a republican congressman trying to smear Obama. He's right in this case, but Issa is by no means a champion of virtue in general.
The only question is, are you going to pay for a very expensive birth, and the social problems that come from people with few resourses having large families? Or are you going to pay for the birth control that will save you a lot of money in the long run?
No, you only pay in the first case, not the second. Contraception is entirely covered by the insurance company (at no cost to you), and it doesn't even raise your premiums because, as you say, it saves the insurance company money in the long term.
What are they forcing Fluke to do?
Pay for contraception out of pocket.
Look, if your point is that this is not as devastating as some other health insurance related problems then you're right - the ability for insurance companies to refuse clients is catastrophic for many people, as an example. Paying for contraception is not an insurmountable barrier but when the insurance company says "We'll cover contraception for your students for free" and the university (or Catholic employer) says "No, we won't allow that," that's intruding on something that is none of the university's business, regardless of how they may feel about the practice.
When they say that they want parents involved, they mean at home. More than anything else, a child's education is dependent on parental involvement at home - reading to them, helping them with their homework, encouraging them to take school seriously, etc.
Curriculum decisions like what you describe are a long and intensely bureaucratic process. If you live in a smaller town with a school district of manageable size there's a small chance that they might listen to you but it would take years to implement anything new and parents are generally only interested in what's happening to their own children right now. They usually don't care about what happens to other people's children down the road.
As for "new math" - memorizing multiplication tables imparts no understanding. I'm not familiar with "new fractions" but let me point out that most children hate math and treating it as an endlessly repetitious chore to be memorized is a large part of the reason why.
A fine, at the least, would be appropriate.
Actually, let me correct myself here - a fine is not enough. Under the DMCA an individual who misrepresents themselves the way that Rumblefish has in this case would be guilty of perjury. No less should be true for a company doing the same.
It's a stupid mistake of an automated algorithm. You can blame google for this, but essentially it's a more complex version of the old "sudo nohup rm -Rf /" paste. Apparently google seems to think that the uploaded videos can't be watched by actual people, that'd be too pricey. So if you want to have a free youtube, mistakes like this will be part of the experience. Imho, they're doing pretty fucking well at this.
The problem with the birdsong issue was not that the automated system picked it up, it was that the video poster protested the take down, Rumblefish reviewed the claim and still declared themselves to be the holder of the birdsong copyright:
http://boingboing.net/2012/02/27/rumblefish-claims-to-own-copyr.html
You're right that Google isn't the party to really get mad at here, the problem is that there is no penalty for this kind of fraudulent claim by a copyright holder. A fine, at the least, would be appropriate.
Deportation is not a trivial punishment, that's huge. For many people a limited prison sentence would be preferable.
Regardless, whether or not this is deserving of punishment should really depend on what he did with the recording after it was made - it's not a hate crime if he just quietly deletes it. The reason why the roommate killed himself isn't given in the summary, so none of us actually knows what's going on here. Nor will we ever, unless someone comes along and writes another summary.
In what way is that commercial related to this story, and why was that included in the summary? Is it the fact that teenagers have sex? Or that people have roommates? Or that computers... exist?
RIght now, in New York, it is so difficult to fire teachers, that even after demonstrable problems, (multiple DUIs, etc)
That's your example? We're not talking about bus drivers, who cares if they have DUIs?
I know people have been making Tannin pills to prevent from having to drink wine ...
No one has to drink wine, some people choose to take dietary supplements because they think it will make them healthier. As for meat being replaced by "meat" - there will be no surprises due to loss of nutrients, there have been perfectly healthy vegetarians for millenia. There will, however, certainly be people making "meat nutrient replacement pills" for the same crowd who buys the Tannin pills. Some people and their money are easily parted.