To clarify - I don't know who invented slavery, and I don't think it is relevant at all, especially to assign it to a race. However the claim that white men ended slavery is so ridiculous and conceited it is appalling.
Of course. It is a political topic, so politicians will find economists who agree with them.
And companies with an agenda will produce survey results that agree with their agenda, like your source appears to have done.
Whereas I linked to an actual survey, not random news stories (which frequently misrepresent science anyway).
A random set of news stories carries as much weight as an unscientific survey given to a biased population sample. If you want actual surveys, there's a 2013 study on the Wikipedia entry for minimum wage showing 43% of economists agreeing minimum wage benefits outweigh the negatives (versus 11% disagreeing). Which leads me back to my original statement - it actually is easy to find opposing viewpoints from economists.
It actually is easy to find opposing viewpoints from economists, if you put the tiniest effort into searching.
I would also note that the site you linked to has an obvious agenda against minimum wage. And while they didn't perform the study themselves, they did dictate the specific economists to send the survey to. Hmm.
And/pol/ has memes about how nearly everyone there now first went there to see for themselves what was so terrible that everyone condemned it.
I've seen this news come up in several places, but none of them provided even a general idea of the offensive content. Saying something is "offensive" is so broad and subjective these days that it is meaningless.
It's not always about the celebrities. Just look at the food guides that have been issued by many governments over the past 50 years. They are highly affected by lobbying of the food industry. This was much worse in the past relative to today, but I remember being floored when I learned that it wasn't 100% based on nutritional science.
There were several years when the most common predicted effect of carbon warming was drought - endless drought, in every possible place, and there's nothing we can do about it! (Muahahahaha!). Articles like these have been typical:
WTF? Most of these articles are about droughts that were actually occurring at the time they were reported. Way to defeat your own argument.
The comments submitted are likely to contain personally identifying information. Each one would have to be vetted and potentially redacted to be released to the public - this takes time and resources. If they released them in their entirety as-is, they would get sued by many people. Any incompetent fool that did that would be fired.
"During Netflix's quarterly earnings call, in which it noted it had added more than five million subscribers in the last three months..." Those are the sales, right? Ideally the new subscribers are going to stay with netflix and keep paying them for a long time.
This needs to be quantified: 5,000,000 x $10/month = $50,000,000 per month. So Netflix revenues went up $50m per month, in just one quarter. Those are sales indeed.
Space Data has been providing commercial wireless services from balloon constellations since 2004, and it operates a radio repeater platform used by the US Army and Marine Corps, utilizing cheap weather balloons. Larry Page likely knew all this. After all, he very nearly bought Space Data in 2008.
If they wanted to get bought it would seem like they already had the chance. I wonder why the deal fell apart. The article provides some pretty clear details backing up the general idea that Google, at the very least, reproduced their ideas.
Those same witneses were willing to die rather than recant the events that they witnessed
That is a pretty solid testimony
While it's obvious you have been drinking the koolaid, you might want to check your programming because the nonsense you're spouting makes less sense than the usual religious nonsense.
e.g. Flickr only costs 25 bucks a year for unlimited storage
I'm not sure if Flickr is a relevant example. When I used them (admittedly many years ago), their ToS had specific rules for linking to images hosted on the site. For example the image was required to be a direct link to Flickr, which you couldn't do on ebay/amazon. Even without that, there is an extremely large difference in expectations between free and $25/year.
what they really mean is "we want innovators/bold thinkers/unconventional thinkers/people who think outside the box but who also remain within the strict policies/structures/conventions of the organization."
Having morals and thinking outside the box aren't mutually exclusive. The CIA might be an exception, but most businesses subcontract the handling of vending machines to other companies. If the same is true for the CIA, then these idiots were stealing from another company. The CIA's rep is bad enough without that.
MapQuest is result #2 on google. As someone else mentioned, apparently Bing puts itself in position #2. Obviously a lot more data would be needed to draw real conclusions, but just maybe based on google's data there aren't many people actually clicking through to bing. One has to acknowledge the fact that Google is a verb, and Bing is a punchline of a bad joke. How obligated should google be to prop up a competitor's lesser product? If anyone is skewing results, I'd say putting Bing as #2 might be the larger lie.
We have them in Canada already. The franchise I visit used to have 3-4 registers for orders. They now have only 2, but have added 4 automated kiosks. The first time I visited I didn't even notice them because they just looked like wallscreens with ads. The difference?
Standing in line to order took a long, fucking, time. It then took a long time to get my food because a number of other people had come in and used the kiosks while I waited in line to order. I would have used the kiosk had I known it was there, but there were no signs and like most people I've mentally conditioned myself to ignore flashing ad screens in restaurants. I generally only use the drive-thru these days because it is always their first priority and goes much quicker.
the point of this is to prevent other sellers like, oh, Best Buy, Target, Walmart, etc, from being able to block retail customers from searching for Amazon pricing on items they find in-store?
That's a good point. Conversely, I wonder if sites like Amazon could use source IP information to detect if someone is looking up their product from inside a competitor's store? They could cross-reference your location with their own database of that competitor's prices and give you a price that is 5% less.
Shooter on the loose: not identifying a specific person, just a statement of fact, libel doesn't apply, don't need to say "suspected"
Shooter killed by police: referring to a specific identifiable person (the guy who the police killed). They're probably the shooter but you don't know, especially in the few hours after the event, so add "suspected" to remove risk of being sued.
Slashdot Mirror
To clarify - I don't know who invented slavery, and I don't think it is relevant at all, especially to assign it to a race. However the claim that white men ended slavery is so ridiculous and conceited it is appalling.
White men didn't "invent" slavery, they ended it.
This single quote shows that your head is so far up your own ass that it is amazing you even know the color of your own skin.
and the industry damn well knows it.
Indeed, and the summary sounds like it is written by the industry with intent to instill doubt.
Of course. It is a political topic, so politicians will find economists who agree with them.
And companies with an agenda will produce survey results that agree with their agenda, like your source appears to have done.
Whereas I linked to an actual survey, not random news stories (which frequently misrepresent science anyway).
A random set of news stories carries as much weight as an unscientific survey given to a biased population sample. If you want actual surveys, there's a 2013 study on the Wikipedia entry for minimum wage showing 43% of economists agreeing minimum wage benefits outweigh the negatives (versus 11% disagreeing). Which leads me back to my original statement - it actually is easy to find opposing viewpoints from economists.
It's not controversial among economists.
It actually is easy to find opposing viewpoints from economists, if you put the tiniest effort into searching. I would also note that the site you linked to has an obvious agenda against minimum wage. And while they didn't perform the study themselves, they did dictate the specific economists to send the survey to. Hmm.
And /pol/ has memes about how nearly everyone there now first went there to see for themselves what was so terrible that everyone condemned it.
I've seen this news come up in several places, but none of them provided even a general idea of the offensive content. Saying something is "offensive" is so broad and subjective these days that it is meaningless.
It's not always about the celebrities. Just look at the food guides that have been issued by many governments over the past 50 years. They are highly affected by lobbying of the food industry. This was much worse in the past relative to today, but I remember being floored when I learned that it wasn't 100% based on nutritional science.
There were several years when the most common predicted effect of carbon warming was drought - endless drought, in every possible place, and there's nothing we can do about it! (Muahahahaha!). Articles like these have been typical:
WTF? Most of these articles are about droughts that were actually occurring at the time they were reported. Way to defeat your own argument.
For anyone interested, the gofundme update #1 linked to an article with far more details.
They've raised $111k out of their $500k goal in the 6 hours they've been up so far (4000+ donations).
The comments submitted are likely to contain personally identifying information. Each one would have to be vetted and potentially redacted to be released to the public - this takes time and resources. If they released them in their entirety as-is, they would get sued by many people. Any incompetent fool that did that would be fired.
"During Netflix's quarterly earnings call, in which it noted it had added more than five million subscribers in the last three months..." Those are the sales, right? Ideally the new subscribers are going to stay with netflix and keep paying them for a long time.
This needs to be quantified: 5,000,000 x $10/month = $50,000,000 per month. So Netflix revenues went up $50m per month, in just one quarter. Those are sales indeed.
And frankly, without the ridiculous media attention to it, I probably wouldn't have noticed.
Space Data has been providing commercial wireless services from balloon constellations since 2004, and it operates a radio repeater platform used by the US Army and Marine Corps, utilizing cheap weather balloons. Larry Page likely knew all this. After all, he very nearly bought Space Data in 2008.
If they wanted to get bought it would seem like they already had the chance. I wonder why the deal fell apart. The article provides some pretty clear details backing up the general idea that Google, at the very least, reproduced their ideas.
Those same witneses were willing to die rather than recant the events that they witnessed
That is a pretty solid testimony
While it's obvious you have been drinking the koolaid, you might want to check your programming because the nonsense you're spouting makes less sense than the usual religious nonsense.
e.g. Flickr only costs 25 bucks a year for unlimited storage
I'm not sure if Flickr is a relevant example. When I used them (admittedly many years ago), their ToS had specific rules for linking to images hosted on the site. For example the image was required to be a direct link to Flickr, which you couldn't do on ebay/amazon. Even without that, there is an extremely large difference in expectations between free and $25/year.
anticompetitive behavior
... do you even know what that means?
That's the difference between being a unionized employee versus temporary labour.
what they really mean is "we want innovators/bold thinkers/unconventional thinkers/people who think outside the box but who also remain within the strict policies/structures/conventions of the organization."
Having morals and thinking outside the box aren't mutually exclusive. The CIA might be an exception, but most businesses subcontract the handling of vending machines to other companies. If the same is true for the CIA, then these idiots were stealing from another company. The CIA's rep is bad enough without that.
MapQuest is result #2 on google. As someone else mentioned, apparently Bing puts itself in position #2. Obviously a lot more data would be needed to draw real conclusions, but just maybe based on google's data there aren't many people actually clicking through to bing. One has to acknowledge the fact that Google is a verb, and Bing is a punchline of a bad joke. How obligated should google be to prop up a competitor's lesser product? If anyone is skewing results, I'd say putting Bing as #2 might be the larger lie.
Searching for "maps":
google.ca
First: google
Second: mapquest
Third: wikipedia
bing.com
First: google
Second: bing
Third: mapquest
yahoo.ca
First: google
Second: bing
Third: mapquest
So... what's the problem really? That bing isn't popular enough on google results?
but nobody questioned the previous president's legal authority to kill them?
Are you kidding? Search Slashdot articles for drone strikes - there was plenty of debate there.
Certain groups wanted this, now here it is.
In Canada the kiosks showed up long before the minimum wage hikes. Either way, neither the wage hike nor the kiosks are a bad thing.
We have them in Canada already. The franchise I visit used to have 3-4 registers for orders. They now have only 2, but have added 4 automated kiosks. The first time I visited I didn't even notice them because they just looked like wallscreens with ads. The difference?
Standing in line to order took a long, fucking, time. It then took a long time to get my food because a number of other people had come in and used the kiosks while I waited in line to order. I would have used the kiosk had I known it was there, but there were no signs and like most people I've mentally conditioned myself to ignore flashing ad screens in restaurants. I generally only use the drive-thru these days because it is always their first priority and goes much quicker.
the point of this is to prevent other sellers like, oh, Best Buy, Target, Walmart, etc, from being able to block retail customers from searching for Amazon pricing on items they find in-store?
That's a good point. Conversely, I wonder if sites like Amazon could use source IP information to detect if someone is looking up their product from inside a competitor's store? They could cross-reference your location with their own database of that competitor's prices and give you a price that is 5% less.
Shooter on the loose: not identifying a specific person, just a statement of fact, libel doesn't apply, don't need to say "suspected"
Shooter killed by police: referring to a specific identifiable person (the guy who the police killed). They're probably the shooter but you don't know, especially in the few hours after the event, so add "suspected" to remove risk of being sued.
snuck away on to the Internet in a porn file that has been propagating since
1999... so we're talking about goatse then?