The point is, people are voting with their money. It may be nice to hang out at a bookstore, but the combination of lower price, vastly greater selection (as in 1000 times greater), and convenience of shopping from home obviously wins out. One justification for keeping the physical stores around Paris might be tourism but when you put it that way - i.e they are charging the taxpayers to decorate the city with bookstores - it does seem kinda silly. It's really just a preference of the ruling elite. They don't care that the books will cost more to the poor people, they are more interested in how the city looks. Just like in certain highly expensive, highly liberal, neighborhoods of San Francisco, New York etc they banned chain restaurants thereby drastically raising the average price of eating out, but it makes it nicer for the rich people to walk around without all those poor people blocking the sidewalk.
Just like "urban renewal" and its destruction of affordable housing. What you wind up with is a neighborhood full of pretentious prissies who got their condos and luxury apartments at a taxpayer provided discount. Just so happens that the discount is not big enough for the people who used to be able to live there.
More proof that the AGW movement is a cult. Real scientists would do the investigation o learn more about climate change, not shrink away from it just because it upsets their insular worldview.
I would have a lot more respect for "not wanting to be political pawns" if they had not already chosen a side of the board.
If the existing data used to base the current conclusions were open to all, you might have more independent scientists investigating this too.
When regional players cannot compete even with taxpayer support (as these french bookstores are), then they should go out of business. Who says brick and mortar bookstores need to exist and we all need to pay higher prices for books in order to keep then artificially alive?
Dirt-world stores do have an advantage that they seem to miss. One can pick up and look at a book in person before buying it, for example. The dust jacket can be a work of art, like the ones from Chip Kidd at Knopf, that you cannot get, and never will get on any existing digital device. Where they fall on their face is in some of their policies that worked fine a century ago, but are completely outdated now. Like demanding to returning unsold stock to the publishers.
On that last one, just think about it if you are a writer or publisher. If you have a choice between a sale being final and someone "buying" your product for three months, then shipping it back to you because they don't want it anymore, which do you choose? On eBooks, I believe Amazon Kindle gives that opportunity to the consumer, that few or no dirt-world bookstores offer, but the writer is not killed with storage fees or remainders. Not sure if they give it on physical books.
As a consumer, it is really none of my business what the seller's underlying costs are, I care about the quality of the product and the price. That is unless the government is giving the seller some of my tax money to pretend that his product is a little cheaper.
A country that gives a shit about its constitution? Surely some mistake...
I'm glad Japan still seems to have some honour left.
It's not about honor, it's about not being stupid. Why would the Japanese let the NSA tap into their communications? So the NSA could then turn around allow General Electric to spy on Japanese corporations internal communications via the NSA backdoors? No fucking way.
More like to keep mainland China from finding out every single thing that they turned over to the USA. They were probably well aware of the PRC having the designs of every single weapon in the US thermonuclear arsenal long before PBS (or was it BBC?) mentioned it in a spy show. It could be said that if you want to be open with your enemies, just send a secret cable to Washington to make sure they get it.
Will the government then be auctioning off the proceeds? Holding them for cashing in later like a bond? Who is advising them on managing the funds? There is both a certain irony and legitimacy in a state holding this new stateless currency.
It is a government agency, of course there are droves of people to advise, manage, and make every sort of decision on what to do with someone else's money.
Cops won't like it because they'll see lower revenue from DUI fines, speeding fines, and all that crap they love taking money for.
I'm sure the governments will figure out a way to bust people for DUI even if they are riding in an auto-auto. They already do it for sitting in cars that are not running.
I like my standard too, but I hate it when I have to drive 2000 miles in it. Can I just put it on auto and be there by morning, please?
Driving 2,000 or even just 500 in my manual shift Jeep is fine, but it is the 5 mile trips that are annoying. Still, not annoying enough to trade it for an autonomous car. Do I want to ban these new-fangled cars? No, of course not. However, I sure as hell don't want it to be the only choice in automotive transport either.
I should hope so. I mean it's not your truck, it's your boss'. It's not your computer and desk, it belongs to your boss. Etc etc. Of course the employer has the RIGHT. Now there's the ethical dilemma - how to use this information for more than just trying to "catch people" in impropriety, how to make the workplace better rather than make big deals about an accidental swear word or comment, etc. Misuse of this technology can and will affect employee morale rather sharply. Errare humanum est. The watchers are going to have to tolerate SOME degree of slack...
Precisely.
Now I wish all this stuff actually resulted in getting rid of bad workers. A couple of years ago I worked in a coffee plant, in packaging. We had cameras all over the place, yet when we had down time and were supposed to be cleaning our machines, etc. certain employees would congregate to chitchat. Not being a supervisor, it was really no skin off my nose, and I was a temp to boot. Only real annoyance was when they gaggled around MY machine when I was trying to clean up. Every bit on camera, not a one of them let go.
Quite the opposite of what happens when a government monopoly on things has their labor go on strike, like mail (pre-internet, when it was really needed) or public transportation of today
It's a little scary to see a commenter automatically assume that the only people who ever go on strike are government workers -- proud private sector union employee here. The Taft-Hartley Act had the effect, in the US, of slowly killing the private sector union and leaving only government employees organized, so that union formation became a privilege or a bennie, as opposed to a protected right of anyone who works.
This is exactly how actions against private firms are supposed to operate. Uber drivers strike or boycott against Uber, a competitor snags available clients until Uber and the drivers reach an agreement. The fact that all Uber drivers are on the Internet makes them easier to organize, but it makes a picket harder to enforce: how do the strikers know for sure their buddy isn't taking Uber work while they're on "strike?"
Okay, then substitute my examples with AT&T back when they were the government protected monopoly for long distance service in the US. Consumers did not have an easy alternative if they went on strike. In the current environment, they do, and Taft-Hartley has precious little if anything to do with that.
Quite the opposite of what happens when a government monopoly on things has their labor go on strike, like mail (pre-internet, when it was really needed) or public transportation of today, the consumer has plenty of other choices and they exercise them.
Unfortunately, in the case of cabs, the big alternative is a government enforced heavily restricted set of providers (a peek at the Boston version here).
Turns out congressmen prefer money over constituents.
Who knew?
What I want to know is if there was ever a time when duty trumped dollars.
Apple's lobbying efforts shot up 111 percent between the third quarter of 2012 and 2013, but still amounted to only $970,000 this year.
Looks like they better get back to their old pace 1990s before they get hauled back into Congress for actually paying some taxes. Ever notice that when one of these firms cuts back on the lobbying, they have to go see the principle live on C-SPAN?
Lobbying should be outlawed, because it's doesn't fairly represent the people. Laws shouldn't be introduced or passed because a lot of money is throw at the law makers.
Problem is, if Google doesn't spend the money, then the other companies that are spending the money are going to be heard, not Google.
Bullshit system that needs to be outlawed.
Then you need to have a Constitution adjustment, since it is more properly called a redress of grievances. What we as citizens need to do is hold those elected responsible for just how they address the redress.
It does not have to be against the law to criticize your employer for your employer to fire you over it. Your employer can fire you for just about any reason they like. Government as employer? Might take longer, but amass enough paper against you and eventually you go away. However, if your employer is the government you could easily be subject to jail and fines if you say the wrong things in the course of your criticism (not saying that applies in this case).
In this particular case of Joseph, yes, his position required a respectable public image. But I'm talking more about grunts, people not in the public eye. Taking the Pepsi example, I mean, do you really think that'd stand up in a court if the fired employee made a huge stink over it? There are laws against discrimination in hiring/firing practices. Those are all based on tangible qualities, such as age, race, gender, sexual orientation.. but then we get to.. religion. That's protected too. And that's an opinion, a preference. So seems to be you'd have a pretty nice wrestle in a court if you fought wrongful termination for personal opinions expressed in your offtime, against your employer (or anything else for that matter.)
Enh, just more reason to cover your tracks as BEST you can when you post on the internet and worry someone might object to it.
If you are talking about one of those non at-will States, or some foreign country, then the job for life no matter what comes into play. However, the issue is dissing your employer, which is the least "protected" version of speech out there. Then again, I am not sure who you are arguing against, since I don't think the Pepsi employee has, or should have, any chance of overturning a firing for that. Neither should the fed in question either.
Are you sure about that? What grounds would you fire such a person under? Is it against the law to criticize your employer? You just can't fire people for no reason (well, you're not supposed to.) I mean if an employee is doing their job, performing well, and secretly bashing you on twitter, is that really a legal ground for termination?
It does not have to be against the law to criticize your employer for your employer to fire you over it. Your employer can fire you for just about any reason they like. Government as employer? Might take longer, but amass enough paper against you and eventually you go away. However, if your employer is the government you could easily be subject to jail and fines if you say the wrong things in the course of your criticism (not saying that applies in this case).
OK, let me get this right. Buddy wants to work with high explosives in his garage, and can't understand why the people in his neighbourhood might think that "red tape" like zoning, safety, and fire regulations might be a good thing?
I grew up on Robert Heinlein and stuff like "Have Spacesuit, Will Travel," and really, really love projects like Spaceship One, but this guy frightens me.
Attitudes like that are what shooed Robert Goddard out of New England.
Sounds like it's high time time to start a VPN provider in SeaLand (or what do we have left that's not firmly in jurisdiction of governments with grubby hands and long noses)?
Perhaps your solution lies on a "pirate" data boat on the high seas?
Back in the old spy days, the gentlemanly thing to do was crack the other guy's encryption, NOT beat his keys out of him. This is just cheating, pure and simple.
Frankly, anyone who understands how insecure wireless is should be terrified of having a built in personal "off switch." I would do the same thing, and so would a lot of slashdot.
I thought there was a story or two right here within the past year about this very vulnerability.
I'm SO happy that I pay for software. I don't have to deal with all of this open source drama bullshit, and have to worry about when somebody's temper tantrum decides to end or radically change some software that I rely on for my business. My eyes glazed over halfway through the story summary, and I really don't care.
I like your idea, but how do you manage to avoid Microsoft, Apple, and Oracle in your process?
He'd better have something he can dole out to keep himself relevant. His life will (soon?) reach a point where any information he has will be less valuable that his death. No matter how he dies, the U.S. will get the blame - and THAT can have a value to some.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is, people are voting with their money. It may be nice to hang out at a bookstore, but the combination of lower price, vastly greater selection (as in 1000 times greater), and convenience of shopping from home obviously wins out. One justification for keeping the physical stores around Paris might be tourism but when you put it that way - i.e they are charging the taxpayers to decorate the city with bookstores - it does seem kinda silly. It's really just a preference of the ruling elite. They don't care that the books will cost more to the poor people, they are more interested in how the city looks. Just like in certain highly expensive, highly liberal, neighborhoods of San Francisco, New York etc they banned chain restaurants thereby drastically raising the average price of eating out, but it makes it nicer for the rich people to walk around without all those poor people blocking the sidewalk.
Just like "urban renewal" and its destruction of affordable housing. What you wind up with is a neighborhood full of pretentious prissies who got their condos and luxury apartments at a taxpayer provided discount. Just so happens that the discount is not big enough for the people who used to be able to live there.
More proof that the AGW movement is a cult. Real scientists would do the investigation o learn more about climate change, not shrink away from it just because it upsets their insular worldview.
I would have a lot more respect for "not wanting to be political pawns" if they had not already chosen a side of the board.
If the existing data used to base the current conclusions were open to all, you might have more independent scientists investigating this too.
When regional players cannot compete even with taxpayer support (as these french bookstores are), then they should go out of business. Who says brick and mortar bookstores need to exist and we all need to pay higher prices for books in order to keep then artificially alive?
Dirt-world stores do have an advantage that they seem to miss. One can pick up and look at a book in person before buying it, for example. The dust jacket can be a work of art, like the ones from Chip Kidd at Knopf, that you cannot get, and never will get on any existing digital device. Where they fall on their face is in some of their policies that worked fine a century ago, but are completely outdated now. Like demanding to returning unsold stock to the publishers.
On that last one, just think about it if you are a writer or publisher. If you have a choice between a sale being final and someone "buying" your product for three months, then shipping it back to you because they don't want it anymore, which do you choose? On eBooks, I believe Amazon Kindle gives that opportunity to the consumer, that few or no dirt-world bookstores offer, but the writer is not killed with storage fees or remainders. Not sure if they give it on physical books.
As a consumer, it is really none of my business what the seller's underlying costs are, I care about the quality of the product and the price. That is unless the government is giving the seller some of my tax money to pretend that his product is a little cheaper.
A country that gives a shit about its constitution? Surely some mistake...
I'm glad Japan still seems to have some honour left.
It's not about honor, it's about not being stupid. Why would the Japanese let the NSA tap into their communications? So the NSA could then turn around allow General Electric to spy on Japanese corporations internal communications via the NSA backdoors? No fucking way.
More like to keep mainland China from finding out every single thing that they turned over to the USA. They were probably well aware of the PRC having the designs of every single weapon in the US thermonuclear arsenal long before PBS (or was it BBC?) mentioned it in a spy show. It could be said that if you want to be open with your enemies, just send a secret cable to Washington to make sure they get it.
No they aren't.
Will the government then be auctioning off the proceeds? Holding them for cashing in later like a bond? Who is advising them on managing the funds? There is both a certain irony and legitimacy in a state holding this new stateless currency.
It is a government agency, of course there are droves of people to advise, manage, and make every sort of decision on what to do with someone else's money.
Hey America! How's your police state working for you so far?
Still playing catch up with Red China, North Korea, and Cuba. But we are trying our best.
Cops won't like it because they'll see lower revenue from DUI fines, speeding fines, and all that crap they love taking money for.
I'm sure the governments will figure out a way to bust people for DUI even if they are riding in an auto-auto. They already do it for sitting in cars that are not running.
I like my standard too, but I hate it when I have to drive 2000 miles in it. Can I just put it on auto and be there by morning, please?
Driving 2,000 or even just 500 in my manual shift Jeep is fine, but it is the 5 mile trips that are annoying. Still, not annoying enough to trade it for an autonomous car. Do I want to ban these new-fangled cars? No, of course not. However, I sure as hell don't want it to be the only choice in automotive transport either.
You're aware that a strike doesn't have to act on a monopoly in order to be a strike, right?
Yes and I never said a word to indicate that I thought anything like that.
I should hope so. I mean it's not your truck, it's your boss'. It's not your computer and desk, it belongs to your boss. Etc etc. Of course the employer has the RIGHT. Now there's the ethical dilemma - how to use this information for more than just trying to "catch people" in impropriety, how to make the workplace better rather than make big deals about an accidental swear word or comment, etc. Misuse of this technology can and will affect employee morale rather sharply. Errare humanum est. The watchers are going to have to tolerate SOME degree of slack...
Precisely.
Now I wish all this stuff actually resulted in getting rid of bad workers. A couple of years ago I worked in a coffee plant, in packaging. We had cameras all over the place, yet when we had down time and were supposed to be cleaning our machines, etc. certain employees would congregate to chitchat. Not being a supervisor, it was really no skin off my nose, and I was a temp to boot. Only real annoyance was when they gaggled around MY machine when I was trying to clean up. Every bit on camera, not a one of them let go.
It's a little scary to see a commenter automatically assume that the only people who ever go on strike are government workers -- proud private sector union employee here. The Taft-Hartley Act had the effect, in the US, of slowly killing the private sector union and leaving only government employees organized, so that union formation became a privilege or a bennie, as opposed to a protected right of anyone who works.
This is exactly how actions against private firms are supposed to operate. Uber drivers strike or boycott against Uber, a competitor snags available clients until Uber and the drivers reach an agreement. The fact that all Uber drivers are on the Internet makes them easier to organize, but it makes a picket harder to enforce: how do the strikers know for sure their buddy isn't taking Uber work while they're on "strike?"
Okay, then substitute my examples with AT&T back when they were the government protected monopoly for long distance service in the US. Consumers did not have an easy alternative if they went on strike. In the current environment, they do, and Taft-Hartley has precious little if anything to do with that.
Quite the opposite of what happens when a government monopoly on things has their labor go on strike, like mail (pre-internet, when it was really needed) or public transportation of today, the consumer has plenty of other choices and they exercise them.
Unfortunately, in the case of cabs, the big alternative is a government enforced heavily restricted set of providers (a peek at the Boston version here).
Turns out congressmen prefer money over constituents.
Who knew?
What I want to know is if there was ever a time when duty trumped dollars.
Apple's lobbying efforts shot up 111 percent between the third quarter of 2012 and 2013, but still amounted to only $970,000 this year.
Looks like they better get back to their old pace 1990s before they get hauled back into Congress for actually paying some taxes. Ever notice that when one of these firms cuts back on the lobbying, they have to go see the principle live on C-SPAN?
Lobbying should be outlawed, because it's doesn't fairly represent the people. Laws shouldn't be introduced or passed because a lot of money is throw at the law makers.
Problem is, if Google doesn't spend the money, then the other companies that are spending the money are going to be heard, not Google.
Bullshit system that needs to be outlawed.
Then you need to have a Constitution adjustment, since it is more properly called a redress of grievances. What we as citizens need to do is hold those elected responsible for just how they address the redress.
It does not have to be against the law to criticize your employer for your employer to fire you over it. Your employer can fire you for just about any reason they like. Government as employer? Might take longer, but amass enough paper against you and eventually you go away. However, if your employer is the government you could easily be subject to jail and fines if you say the wrong things in the course of your criticism (not saying that applies in this case).
In this particular case of Joseph, yes, his position required a respectable public image. But I'm talking more about grunts, people not in the public eye. Taking the Pepsi example, I mean, do you really think that'd stand up in a court if the fired employee made a huge stink over it? There are laws against discrimination in hiring/firing practices. Those are all based on tangible qualities, such as age, race, gender, sexual orientation.. but then we get to.. religion. That's protected too. And that's an opinion, a preference. So seems to be you'd have a pretty nice wrestle in a court if you fought wrongful termination for personal opinions expressed in your offtime, against your employer (or anything else for that matter.)
Enh, just more reason to cover your tracks as BEST you can when you post on the internet and worry someone might object to it.
If you are talking about one of those non at-will States, or some foreign country, then the job for life no matter what comes into play. However, the issue is dissing your employer, which is the least "protected" version of speech out there. Then again, I am not sure who you are arguing against, since I don't think the Pepsi employee has, or should have, any chance of overturning a firing for that. Neither should the fed in question either.
Are you sure about that? What grounds would you fire such a person under? Is it against the law to criticize your employer? You just can't fire people for no reason (well, you're not supposed to.) I mean if an employee is doing their job, performing well, and secretly bashing you on twitter, is that really a legal ground for termination?
It does not have to be against the law to criticize your employer for your employer to fire you over it. Your employer can fire you for just about any reason they like. Government as employer? Might take longer, but amass enough paper against you and eventually you go away. However, if your employer is the government you could easily be subject to jail and fines if you say the wrong things in the course of your criticism (not saying that applies in this case).
the primary reason for a search cannot be to generate evidence for law enforcement purposes.
So, we don't have any evidence now so we'll attach this GPS tracker to their car and then we'll have evidence that justifies tracking their car!
Law enforcement logic.
And like most things, this is not new. It is COINTELPRO all over again. It is substantially identical, other than the particular gadget in question.
OK, let me get this right. Buddy wants to work with high explosives in his garage, and can't understand why the people in his neighbourhood might think that "red tape" like zoning, safety, and fire regulations might be a good thing? I grew up on Robert Heinlein and stuff like "Have Spacesuit, Will Travel," and really, really love projects like Spaceship One, but this guy frightens me.
Attitudes like that are what shooed Robert Goddard out of New England.
Sounds like it's high time time to start a VPN provider in SeaLand (or what do we have left that's not firmly in jurisdiction of governments with grubby hands and long noses)?
Perhaps your solution lies on a "pirate" data boat on the high seas?
Back in the old spy days, the gentlemanly thing to do was crack the other guy's encryption, NOT beat his keys out of him. This is just cheating, pure and simple.
how do you show the presence of entanglement without disturbing it?
Analyze it with a quantum computer.
Frankly, anyone who understands how insecure wireless is should be terrified of having a built in personal "off switch." I would do the same thing, and so would a lot of slashdot.
I thought there was a story or two right here within the past year about this very vulnerability.
I'm SO happy that I pay for software. I don't have to deal with all of this open source drama bullshit, and have to worry about when somebody's temper tantrum decides to end or radically change some software that I rely on for my business. My eyes glazed over halfway through the story summary, and I really don't care.
I like your idea, but how do you manage to avoid Microsoft, Apple, and Oracle in your process?
He'd better have something he can dole out to keep himself relevant. His life will (soon?) reach a point where any information he has will be less valuable that his death. No matter how he dies, the U.S. will get the blame - and THAT can have a value to some.
Maybe Putin is starting a US expatriates of conscience theme park, like Houari Boumediene did for the Black Panthers and others?