Obviously you can't see the difference between making a deal that allows you to leverage somebody else's labor to earn profit and an unfair deal. I outright stated that sometimes this is fair. Why are you complaining about that? Methinks you are a troll.
Yes, the USA has one graduated tax, and it has hundreds of regressive taxes. When you add them all up as this source did and that you refuse to acknowledge -- neocons are really good at that -- it comes out remarkably close to even across all levels of income.
I guess they fear that having the Olympics will make London a target for terrorists.
I guess somebody will have to explain it to the terrorists that they had best wait for the show to begin. Otherwise they might continue bombing busses and subway stations in the meantime and not have any anybody left to fly planes over the Olympic site come late July and August.
That's what doesn't make sense to me. The current mean temperature of the ocean is about 4C, according to this source. And at 4C, the CTE is zero.
But I have a hard time squaring that with this graph
The graph makes it look like most of the Earth's oceans have surface temperatures significantly higher. Maybe the penetration that warmth to lower levels isn't very great?
Of course, that would take an awful lot of ice melting. There's only enough ice on Greenland to raise sea levels 7 meters and only enough on Antarctica to raise it 123 meters. Holy crap!
But the latter isn't likely to happen -- not totally anyway. Greenland is within the realm of reasonably likely this could happen in the next century.
The easiest way for Apple to acquire the capacity would be to just take some of their cash and buy a major contract manufacturer. Then all the manufacturing expertise comes along with the purchase. They could probably just buy Foxconn. They could easily buy Flextronics.
But unlike Apple, there are lots of American companies that couldn't manufacture their own stuff in the USA.
But you can't become rich only because of your own hard work. You also have to take advantage of the hard work of others, pay them less than the value of their labor so you can skim off a portion of that value for yourself.
I'm shure you know this by your experience in trying to be rich. So, what you say is there is no way a company will pay fair salaries AND be profitable. I don't really know what else to say to you, we don't live on the same universe.
Don't put YOUR words in my mouth. That may be acceptable in YOUR universe but it's not in mine. I never said a company can't pay fair salaries and be profitable. I said you can't get rich unless you pay people less then the value of their work. If that's not obvious to you, let me illustrate: If I own a ShavanoMart and I employ you, you contribute X dollars to my bottom line. If I pay you X dollars, I'd be just as well off if I didn't employ you at all. The agreement you and I make about your wages and working conditions may or may not be fair. (It's fair if you are free to not accept my offer but do it anyway.) If you're not free to reject my offer, I can get you to work at an exploitative wage.
And that person, whether honest or dishonest, gets benefit from the government in proportion to the size of his operations.
As everyone else. Why should A pay, lets say, 20% of their income, and B pay 40%?
That doesn't happen in America Here, almost everybody pays close to the same fraction of their income in taxes. The top 10% pay about 48% of the total taxes and they get about 45% of total income. To me, that seems pretty fair.
If Apple wants to insulate itself from bad press related to the employment practices of its contract manufacturers, it could buy its own factories and employ the workers who make its products.
There are contract manufacturers, totally capable of meeting their manufacturing requirements, that Apple could afford to buy if they wanted to. Or they could just buy the few factories that they would need.
When they choose to do business with sweatshops to build their products, they are essentially telling us they don't care enough to dirty their hands with that manufacturing business. They don't want to think about the labor relations aspects. They just don't care that much.
Same goes for Microshaft (whose products these particular workers actually make) and all the other big companies that use contract manufacturers instead of employing their own labor force. Little companies can legitimately say that they can't afford the investment in manufacturing capacity necessary to make their products efficiently. That's just not the case when you're making a big-ticket item that you sell by the millions.
They might feel the urge to squish us the same way we squish a bug. Our existence might offend their sensibilities. Who says extraterrestrial intelligence has to be rational. We're not.
It's not just about curiosity. Even thought a discovery might not have practical uses today, it might in the future.
If there's no specific intent to use the information, it's basic research and we really do that to satisfy our curiosity. In particle physics, we are probably far past the point where there's any reasonable expectation that the results of the experiments will have any practical application.
Actually, calling him an idiot or asshole wouldn't be protected speech. Your boss would say it undermines workplace morale and that's a legitimate reason for firing you.
Saying you support candidate B or issue Y would be protected speech.
It can't be a precedent because it was determined in summary judgement. The whole thing about the first amendment was buried in the summary judgement decision, but it is irrelevant at this point.
Maybe you can explain your rationale.
I don't see how you come to that conclusion. The court ruled merely posting a "like" on an opposing candidate's facebook page didn't constitute protected political speech. It wasn't a ruling on whether the plaintiffs were injured or that the sheriff would have been prohibited from firing them in retaliation for association with his opponent. It wasn't even a ruling on on the facts -- whether the sheriff had actually fired them for political association or not.
Yes, there is no way someone honest can be rich. Or that someone can become rich because of hard work. Because if you somehow have less, it's never your fault, is it? It's always someone else's. No one forces you to live in capitalism, no one forces you to be a part of what you call "twisted society". But it's funny how you spew your little rant over giant multi-billion technology infrastructure that probably woudn't exist if not for those "parasites" you hate. Hypocrisy much?
Sure, an honest person can be rich. And an honest person can become rich in part because of his or her own hard work. But you can't become rich only because of your own hard work. You also have to take advantage of the hard work of others, pay them less than the value of their labor so you can skim off a portion of that value for yourself.
And that person, whether honest or dishonest, gets benefit from the government in proportion to the size of his operations. Everything relies on public infrastructures that have to be paid for, whether it's a rich dude sitting alone in his mansion on his private estate or a multi-billion dollar technology company sitting on its many corporate holdings.
No, most corporations are small shops owned by one or two people who actually do a lot of the work. They're totally different and should be taxed totally differently than public corporations that are owned mostly by people who are not in any way involved in the work the company does.
And that only cost a $1-2 Trillion and about 150,000 to 600,00 lives. How long would it have taken Saddam and his psychopathic sons to kill that many people?
I know this is slightly in jest, but this paper is not the sum-total of all of the work at the LHC.
There are 6 projects, each with hundreds of scientists, all of whom are juggling many papers at once. This Xi stuff is completely independent from Higgs searches, and it is one of many particles already discovered or confirmed at the LHC. So this isn't a Higgs-worthy discovery, although I think it is pumped-up a bit because CERN has really good press, and it looks good that the LHC is finding new physics.
Otherwise, this would just be a normal story. New Baryons or Mesons (like this one) are found a few times a year.
I know this is slightly in jest, but this paper is not the sum-total of all of the work at the LHC.
There are 6 projects, each with hundreds of scientists, all of whom are juggling many papers at once. This Xi stuff is completely independent from Higgs searches, and it is one of many particles already discovered or confirmed at the LHC. So this isn't a Higgs-worthy discovery, although I think it is pumped-up a bit because CERN has really good press, and it looks good that the LHC is finding new physics.
Otherwise, this would just be a normal story. New Baryons or Mesons (like this one) are found a few times a year.
It's interesting that it's yet another confirmation of the standard model. Calling it "new physics" is probably a little bit of an overstatement, since everybody expected that this particle was one of the ones that they would be able to prove out. It's a new and confirming result. I would go so far as to say something is "new physics" if it was weird enough to call the standard model into doubt, or if a neutrino really did travel faster than the speed of light, or if it looked like confirmation of a new theory.
As for the fact that it employs hundreds of scientists, that's really irrelevant. Since when do we do science as a jobs program for the very smart?
Science is for two things:
the pursuit of knowledge to satisfy our curiosity about the universe
the pursuit of useful knowledge to improve our lives
I don't agree with your statement that all faiths are equal. A faith has an outlook toward others and toward human actions that it carries with it.
That outlook has value, not entirely separable from the things believed. For example, Christianity makes out all people to be sinners deserving of death. It teaches us to think of ourselves and others as dirty, tainted beings who must rely on an outside entity (GOD) to have worth. I have many other complaints about the worldview that comes part and parcel with Christianity.
And I have different problems with other religions. For instance Buddhism says my attachments to others can't make me happy and encourages me to emotionally isolate myself from others. I find that thought inhuman.
But I see plenty of people who believe in those faiths who are good people. To he degree they are good people on the one hand and happy in their relationships with one another on he other hand, their lives defy their religious dogmas.
What! I thought they were all against job killing taxes!
What! I thought they were all against job killing taxes!
The state isn't raising taxes. The taxes were owed already. But the state had no way of taxing the sale or even knowing it had occurred. If you bought an item on line and didn't pay sales tax on it, you broke the law. You were supposed to notify the state that you bought the item and you are supposed to pay the tax.
I doubt there are any resources a spacefaring civilization could find on Earth that they couldn't find much closer to home. Asteroids and comets good sources of water and many metals and other elements. Unless they want fresh meat.
Probably the only reasons to travel 200 light years to visit a developing culture are to study it, befriend it, or annihilate it so it doesn't become a threat later when it becomes more advanced.
First, a second generation star could have planets that support life.
Second, the stars that form supernovas don't last long, millions of years, not billions. Many generations of heavy stars had time to form and die before our solar system was formed. A system with similar elemental composition or even heavier could have formed billions of years before ours did.
Third, even if it did take ten billion years before conditions were right for the formation of a star system that could support life, that formation happened all over the galaxy. There's nothing peculiar about our sun. It has many thousands of peers in the galaxy, and our planet has many thousands of peers -- sort of earthlike mass planets of similar composition residing in an earthlike irradiation zone around their stars.
There's no reason at all to think we're the first. We just don't know enough to say that. Maybe life is kind of unusual even on planets that can support it. Or maybe every planet that can support it has life after a few million years. Maybe life almost never evolves to complex forms or maybe it almost always does, given a billion years or so.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously you can't see the difference between making a deal that allows you to leverage somebody else's labor to earn profit and an unfair deal. I outright stated that sometimes this is fair. Why are you complaining about that? Methinks you are a troll.
Yes, the USA has one graduated tax, and it has hundreds of regressive taxes. When you add them all up as this source did and that you refuse to acknowledge -- neocons are really good at that -- it comes out remarkably close to even across all levels of income.
Source: Citizens for Tax Justice http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2012/04/who_pays_taxes_in_america.php
Since when is pitching products illegal. It's not something I'd do to my friends for products I don't believe in though.
I guess they fear that having the Olympics will make London a target for terrorists.
I guess somebody will have to explain it to the terrorists that they had best wait for the show to begin. Otherwise they might continue bombing busses and subway stations in the meantime and not have any anybody left to fly planes over the Olympic site come late July and August.
That's what doesn't make sense to me. The current mean temperature of the ocean is about 4C, according to this source. And at 4C, the CTE is zero.
But I have a hard time squaring that with this graph
The graph makes it look like most of the Earth's oceans have surface temperatures significantly higher. Maybe the penetration that warmth to lower levels isn't very great?
2 meters puts floods on the National Mall!
Of course, that would take an awful lot of ice melting. There's only enough ice on Greenland to raise sea levels 7 meters and only enough on Antarctica to raise it 123 meters. Holy crap!
But the latter isn't likely to happen -- not totally anyway. Greenland is within the realm of reasonably likely this could happen in the next century.
The easiest way for Apple to acquire the capacity would be to just take some of their cash and buy a major contract manufacturer. Then all the manufacturing expertise comes along with the purchase. They could probably just buy Foxconn. They could easily buy Flextronics.
But unlike Apple, there are lots of American companies that couldn't manufacture their own stuff in the USA.
But you can't become rich only because of your own hard work. You also have to take advantage of the hard work of others, pay them less than the value of their labor so you can skim off a portion of that value for yourself.
I'm shure you know this by your experience in trying to be rich. So, what you say is there is no way a company will pay fair salaries AND be profitable. I don't really know what else to say to you, we don't live on the same universe.
Don't put YOUR words in my mouth. That may be acceptable in YOUR universe but it's not in mine. I never said a company can't pay fair salaries and be profitable. I said you can't get rich unless you pay people less then the value of their work. If that's not obvious to you, let me illustrate: If I own a ShavanoMart and I employ you, you contribute X dollars to my bottom line. If I pay you X dollars, I'd be just as well off if I didn't employ you at all. The agreement you and I make about your wages and working conditions may or may not be fair. (It's fair if you are free to not accept my offer but do it anyway.) If you're not free to reject my offer, I can get you to work at an exploitative wage.
And that person, whether honest or dishonest, gets benefit from the government in proportion to the size of his operations.
As everyone else. Why should A pay, lets say, 20% of their income, and B pay 40%?
That doesn't happen in America Here, almost everybody pays close to the same fraction of their income in taxes. The top 10% pay about 48% of the total taxes and they get about 45% of total income. To me, that seems pretty fair.
source: http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2012/04/who_pays_taxes_in_america.php
but I bet you never worked in a union shop or one that was trying to organize.
I think you've just lived long enough to hear a few stories thirdhand and think you now know God's truth.
And you know this because you have seen working conditions in this particular plant?
If Apple wants to insulate itself from bad press related to the employment practices of its contract manufacturers, it could buy its own factories and employ the workers who make its products.
There are contract manufacturers, totally capable of meeting their manufacturing requirements, that Apple could afford to buy if they wanted to. Or they could just buy the few factories that they would need.
When they choose to do business with sweatshops to build their products, they are essentially telling us they don't care enough to dirty their hands with that manufacturing business. They don't want to think about the labor relations aspects. They just don't care that much.
Same goes for Microshaft (whose products these particular workers actually make) and all the other big companies that use contract manufacturers instead of employing their own labor force. Little companies can legitimately say that they can't afford the investment in manufacturing capacity necessary to make their products efficiently. That's just not the case when you're making a big-ticket item that you sell by the millions.
They might feel the urge to squish us the same way we squish a bug. Our existence might offend their sensibilities. Who says extraterrestrial intelligence has to be rational. We're not.
It's not just about curiosity. Even thought a discovery might not have practical uses today, it might in the future.
If there's no specific intent to use the information, it's basic research and we really do that to satisfy our curiosity. In particle physics, we are probably far past the point where there's any reasonable expectation that the results of the experiments will have any practical application.
Actually, calling him an idiot or asshole wouldn't be protected speech. Your boss would say it undermines workplace morale and that's a legitimate reason for firing you.
Saying you support candidate B or issue Y would be protected speech.
Any court decision can be used as precedent by another court, except on appeal.
If this case should be appealed and the judge's decision is upheld, then it would become a really big deal.
It can't be a precedent because it was determined in summary judgement. The whole thing about the first amendment was buried in the summary judgement decision, but it is irrelevant at this point.
Maybe you can explain your rationale.
I don't see how you come to that conclusion. The court ruled merely posting a "like" on an opposing candidate's facebook page didn't constitute protected political speech. It wasn't a ruling on whether the plaintiffs were injured or that the sheriff would have been prohibited from firing them in retaliation for association with his opponent. It wasn't even a ruling on on the facts -- whether the sheriff had actually fired them for political association or not.
Yes, there is no way someone honest can be rich. Or that someone can become rich because of hard work. Because if you somehow have less, it's never your fault, is it? It's always someone else's. No one forces you to live in capitalism, no one forces you to be a part of what you call "twisted society". But it's funny how you spew your little rant over giant multi-billion technology infrastructure that probably woudn't exist if not for those "parasites" you hate. Hypocrisy much?
Sure, an honest person can be rich. And an honest person can become rich in part because of his or her own hard work. But you can't become rich only because of your own hard work. You also have to take advantage of the hard work of others, pay them less than the value of their labor so you can skim off a portion of that value for yourself.
And that person, whether honest or dishonest, gets benefit from the government in proportion to the size of his operations. Everything relies on public infrastructures that have to be paid for, whether it's a rich dude sitting alone in his mansion on his private estate or a multi-billion dollar technology company
sitting on its many corporate holdings.
No, most corporations are small shops owned by one or two people who actually do a lot of the work. They're totally different and should be taxed totally differently than public corporations that are owned mostly by people who are not in any way involved in the work the company does.
You can be fired for your Facebook likes, but since they don't count as free speech theoretically this means the government could regulate them.
It's an unfortunate decision that's likely to become a precedent for future cases where your free speech will be further restricted.
And that only cost a $1-2 Trillion and about 150,000 to 600,00 lives. How long would it have taken Saddam and his psychopathic sons to kill that many people?
I know this is slightly in jest, but this paper is not the sum-total of all of the work at the LHC.
There are 6 projects, each with hundreds of scientists, all of whom are juggling many papers at once. This Xi stuff is completely independent from Higgs searches, and it is one of many particles already discovered or confirmed at the LHC. So this isn't a Higgs-worthy discovery, although I think it is pumped-up a bit because CERN has really good press, and it looks good that the LHC is finding new physics.
Otherwise, this would just be a normal story. New Baryons or Mesons (like this one) are found a few times a year.
I know this is slightly in jest, but this paper is not the sum-total of all of the work at the LHC.
There are 6 projects, each with hundreds of scientists, all of whom are juggling many papers at once. This Xi stuff is completely independent from Higgs searches, and it is one of many particles already discovered or confirmed at the LHC. So this isn't a Higgs-worthy discovery, although I think it is pumped-up a bit because CERN has really good press, and it looks good that the LHC is finding new physics.
Otherwise, this would just be a normal story. New Baryons or Mesons (like this one) are found a few times a year.
It's interesting that it's yet another confirmation of the standard model. Calling it "new physics" is probably a little bit of an overstatement, since everybody expected that this particle was one of the ones that they would be able to prove out. It's a new and confirming result. I would go so far as to say something is "new physics" if it was weird enough to call the standard model into doubt, or if a neutrino really did travel faster than the speed of light, or if it looked like confirmation of a new theory.
As for the fact that it employs hundreds of scientists, that's really irrelevant. Since when do we do science as a jobs program for the very smart?
Science is for two things:
This is an example of the former.
Tiny little particle; huge godlike pricetag.
I don't agree with your statement that all faiths are equal. A faith has an outlook toward others and toward human actions that it carries with it.
That outlook has value, not entirely separable from the things believed. For example, Christianity makes out all people to be sinners deserving of death. It teaches us to think of ourselves and others as dirty, tainted beings who must rely on an outside entity (GOD) to have worth. I have many other complaints about the worldview that comes part and parcel with Christianity.
And I have different problems with other religions. For instance Buddhism says my attachments to others can't make me happy and encourages me to emotionally isolate myself from others. I find that thought inhuman.
But I see plenty of people who believe in those faiths who are good people. To he degree they are good people on the one hand and happy in their relationships with one another on he other hand, their lives defy their religious dogmas.
What! I thought they were all against job killing taxes!
What! I thought they were all against job killing taxes!
The state isn't raising taxes. The taxes were owed already. But the state had no way of taxing the sale or even knowing it had occurred. If you bought an item on line and didn't pay sales tax on it, you broke the law. You were supposed to notify the state that you bought the item and you are supposed to pay the tax.
I doubt there are any resources a spacefaring civilization could find on Earth that they couldn't find much closer to home. Asteroids and comets good sources of water and many metals and other elements. Unless they want fresh meat.
Probably the only reasons to travel 200 light years to visit a developing culture are to study it, befriend it, or annihilate it so it doesn't become a threat later when it becomes more advanced.
Lebensraum.
First, a second generation star could have planets that support life.
Second, the stars that form supernovas don't last long, millions of years, not billions. Many generations of heavy stars had time to form and die before our solar system was formed. A system with similar elemental composition or even heavier could have formed billions of years before ours did.
Third, even if it did take ten billion years before conditions were right for the formation of a star system that could support life, that formation happened all over the galaxy. There's nothing peculiar about our sun. It has many thousands of peers in the galaxy, and our planet has many thousands of peers -- sort of earthlike mass planets of similar composition residing in an earthlike irradiation zone around their stars.
There's no reason at all to think we're the first. We just don't know enough to say that. Maybe life is kind of unusual even on planets that can support it. Or maybe every planet that can support it has life after a few million years. Maybe life almost never evolves to complex forms or maybe it almost always does, given a billion years or so.