Except those are not the numbers - they are trivial to look up, so why guess? And your guesses are absurd, 1 in 20 people in China committing suicide per year!?! That would be 60 million suicides a year.
330,000 employees at the Shenzen plant, and 10 suicides in one year. That's 0.003% for the factory. The national average is 33 per 100k, or 0.032%. That's 10x higher than at the plant. Not to mention, something like 99% of the employees at Foxconn are factory workers. If administrative rates were lower it would be completely irrelevant to the overall average.
So, if anything, what's really striking about the data is how much LOWER it is. Don't think that was the point of the article, though.
I'm not even sure it's cramming. In high school I was required to take chemistry AND speech. Also covered basic political science and creative writing during other required classes. Music was an elective I could have chosen, but didn't.
And for more in depth classes in those topics? That's what college is for, duh. If you want to go into creative writing, political science, or communications, no one will give a shit whether you took a high school survey class in the subject (and if you want to go into music you better have joined the orchestra, etc, as an extracurricular (and practiced your ass off outside of school) or you're not getting into a music program anyway.
I have no interest in defending Foxconn or Apple for the conditions in their factories, but yes, this article (and others on that site) is so flawed and snarky it's barely worth crediting.
My favorite gems:
The company had been running an internship program that put 14- to 16-year-old children on the factory floor
And the link they reference in that quote (to anther article on their OWN site) says it was vocational interns (16+) and college students (18+). So more accurate would be "16 to 22". You'd think they could quote their own articles correctly.
Also from that article referenced: The suicide rate at Foxconn is still lower than that of the general population in China, but striking for its concentration among a group of workers at a single company.
Wha?? Someone failed basic statistics. If the rate is lower over a population (where "rate" = incidents/population), how is the concentration (eh, also incidents/population) striking? In fact, it's only striking because of the *anecdotes* sensationalized by stories like this...
Basic human rights and working conditions in China are a big problem, but it doesn't help the cause to make up facts and statistics that don't exist...
Income is income, and it should *at least* be taxed fairly and equally. I see no reason why capital gains should be taxed at 15% and wages at up to 35% - we're not even talking a progressive tax at this point, it's basically regressive. And the argument that "it was already taxed as corporate income taxes" is bullshit. That only applies to dividends and had nothing to do with stock market speculation, derivatives, etc, which is how the really rich get richer.
The point is he was given the opportunity to be successful due to the infrastructure and business environment in the United States, so he should pay an equal *percentage* of the gains he made through that. If he doesn't like that, leave and become a citizen of some other country. Not surprisingly, even Romney is not really arguing that point.
Well, I guess I disagree as to "the only choice", maybe I'm more of a pragmatist than idealist.
But I wholeheartedly agree that Rocky Anderson would be a very interesting candidate if people took him seriously - if he were a Democratic nominee in the 2016 primary I'd probably vote for him.
Your positions are similar to many California liberals/Democrats (of which I suppose I am one). Though it seems to me many areas where the Greens and Libertarians overlap is more an accident of policy than underlying "core ideas".
Personally, I don't think it makes sense to call oneself "Libertarian" if you pick and choose - most people believe in basic human rights (they just argue what those rights are). Libertarianism is an ideology that the government be minimized across the board, not minimized for personal liberties but not for social and environmental common welfare.
I'm curious about your opinion in the many areas where the Green & Libertarian (in the US at least) parties explicitly differ, for example:
1. gun control 2. immigrant rights 3. unions 4. social welfare & health services 5. minimum wage 6. government funding for advanced education, arts, research 7. corporate limits, oversight, regulation, and anti-trust laws (see also #11) 8. net neutrality 9. public broadcasting 10. affirmative action 11. and one of the core foundations of the Green party, government regulation of environmental policy
Basically Greens say "yes" to all of those and Libertarians say "no" (I think their general rule of thumb is "if it costs me money and doesn't benefit me directly, we're against it";)
They basically only "agree" where the Green platform happens to overlap the basic Libertarian idea of small government. But that's more accident than policy. And of those, only military spending is really a significant cost - in that case Libertarians believe in isolationism, and Greens in pacifism. Big deal.
The Green platform doesn't believe these things because of a "small government" platform, they are happy to spend huge amounts of time and money on environmental protections, corporate oversight and limitation, social services and health care, education, etc. The Libertarians have the opposite views on all of those issues. And those issues are a huge portion of the Federal policy and budget.
Why would I care about an independent source when I want to bash Romney? And what was veiled about it? I thought it was pretty clear bashing, and pretty funny as well.
On a side note, Obama and Romney have the exact same campaign. Their message is basically that the other guy sucks, and they will fix the country. Meanwhile there is no discernible difference in what they actually describe they are going to do.
If you can't even figure out their differences by now, I'm glad you aren't able to vote in this American election. As I and others have said, it's not just about a couple of economic proposals (that really aren't remotely the same anyway) it's about their position on social issues, the likelihood of their nominating a couple of Supreme Court justices, and their ability to support or veto any potential laws that could "fix" some of the US domestic problems.
I'm guessing your country probably already has socialized health care, allows women to choose, and doesn't give absurd tax breaks to millionaires so that they pay half the percentage the middle class does. Well, despite Republican opposition there was some small progress made in that direction. And Romney has said one of the first things he'll do is overturn the health care act and cut taxes for corporations and high income earners. Those are just a couple examples of many...
Well, a women's right to do what she wants with her body affects over 50% of the US population, so I'd say that affects a hell of a lot more people than warrantless wiretapping every day. And gay marriage, immigration reform, and affirmative action are obviously less than 50%, but the same applies. Loss of privacy is a very bad thing, but having your basic human rights publicly taken away without anyone stopping it is even worse.
It takes a very selfish person to state that only the causes that they think affect them directly are important. And gay marriage is one of those self-evident inalienable human rights that is so fundamental to the Constitution. Remember, the Constitution was designed to describe the limits of government, not exhaustively list the rights citizens have.
And as far as "the power of Congress to declare was subverted by executive order" - you clearly didn't understand what that statement means. It means the President no longer bothers asking Congress, your example just supported my statement.
Yes, John Anderson and Ross Perot both made huge statements in their independent runs. Where is all the third part support that was supposed to come out of that?
And if you think the candidates are substantially similar, you are either a total hermit or delusional. And also don't follow history as far as 3rd party lasting popularity, as John Anderson and Ross Perot have already proved.
Heh, you are the same person who replied to me earlier - well, being from NZ you probably don't understand the US Supreme Court.
Given ages of current justices, whoever is elected will likely get to nominate 2 Supreme Court justices. If that's Romney that will likely mean overturning Roe v Wade (ie banning abortion), validating the Defense of Marriage Act barring same sex unions, overturning any possible attempt to ban assault rifles, allowing warrantless wiretapping and surveillance of US citizens, deciding on the legality of any immigration reform, and any chance at gender equality laws or affirmative action. And that's not just for the next 4 years, Supreme Court justices serve for life so it could affect individual liberties for a decade or more. (yes, you can see from my description which side I support. But if you hold the opposite opinions it's equally important, of course).
So, yes, that IS potentially at the expense of MANY peoples' futures. Not to mention the power of Congress to declare war has been completely subverted by executive order, so the current two futile and baseless wars the US are fighting are due to the actions of a single President over 10 years ago.
Calling these two candidates "similar individuals" is completely cynical and naive. Like it or not (and many Americans don't) the core beliefs of the US President has an inordinate amount of influence over both American domestic policy and many world events.
Honestly, though, I don't know NZ's electoral system but I'd imagine like many they actually get representation for minority votes? The American system is all-or-nothing for individual candidates, and the "other" parties make up about a collective 1-2% of the vote. Those things the Greens in NZ accomplished would be completely impossible as they are about as (probably less?) influential in US politics as the Scientologists..
So basically, you can vote for the Green or Libertarian Parties if you want to make a political statement no one will listen to, or you can pick the electable candidate you agree with the most (no matter how hard that is) and try to make the best of the situation that you can.
A vote for third party is a vote for the incumbent.
No, a vote for a third party is one less vote for the candidate you would have otherwise voted for if you got off your high horse and realized government and politics are about compromise and practicality (and that "you" is not you the poster, I think we agree with the point that third party votes in this elections are basically making a statement at the expense of your future...)
I don't know what's funnier, the original link I posted or the fact that Romney's real link you posted is no more useful in understanding the real numbers.
If you can't decide between the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, you probably shouldn't vote for either... they are pretty much polar opposites as far as the government's overall influence in many areas.
That said, if you want to throw darts at a board, go for the Greens. They are probably less likely to shoot you for straying onto their proppity, and they make better lifeguards.
I'm not pushing Xbox Music - I need another music service/source like I need... well something else I really don't need;)
But given Microsoft's plan is basically to offer a really cheap Windows 8 upgrade to anyone running Windows XP and up (and XP is going EOL soon anyway)... MS may have 99 problems but installed user base ain't one...
Yeah, I was mostly making a dumb joke. You're probably right about him. In fact, search "ninjacut shill" on Google and the top results are the same crap on zdnet:)
I don't know all that much about Xbox Music, but I do know it's not Xbox-specific. It will be on Windows 8 PCs, tablets, and phones as well. Software-wise, the GP is probably correct - it has a lot of features, and iTunes really is a piece of crap anyway. But a piece of crap with massive distribution.
And I can't *imagine* how you'd make that assumption that "Xbox Music" was for Xbox only;) Microsoft branding gnomes strike again!
Come on, Slashdot is brimming with Linux and Apple fanboys. It can't be *that* surprising that there is at least one Microsoft fanboy who reads the site, as well...
Slashdot Mirror
Except those are not the numbers - they are trivial to look up, so why guess? And your guesses are absurd, 1 in 20 people in China committing suicide per year!?! That would be 60 million suicides a year.
330,000 employees at the Shenzen plant, and 10 suicides in one year. That's 0.003% for the factory. The national average is 33 per 100k, or 0.032%. That's 10x higher than at the plant. Not to mention, something like 99% of the employees at Foxconn are factory workers. If administrative rates were lower it would be completely irrelevant to the overall average.
So, if anything, what's really striking about the data is how much LOWER it is. Don't think that was the point of the article, though.
I'm not even sure it's cramming. In high school I was required to take chemistry AND speech. Also covered basic political science and creative writing during other required classes. Music was an elective I could have chosen, but didn't.
And for more in depth classes in those topics? That's what college is for, duh. If you want to go into creative writing, political science, or communications, no one will give a shit whether you took a high school survey class in the subject (and if you want to go into music you better have joined the orchestra, etc, as an extracurricular (and practiced your ass off outside of school) or you're not getting into a music program anyway.
I have no interest in defending Foxconn or Apple for the conditions in their factories, but yes, this article (and others on that site) is so flawed and snarky it's barely worth crediting.
My favorite gems:
The company had been running an internship program that put 14- to 16-year-old children on the factory floor
And the link they reference in that quote (to anther article on their OWN site) says it was vocational interns (16+) and college students (18+). So more accurate would be "16 to 22". You'd think they could quote their own articles correctly.
Also from that article referenced: The suicide rate at Foxconn is still lower than that of the general population in China, but striking for its concentration among a group of workers at a single company.
Wha?? Someone failed basic statistics. If the rate is lower over a population (where "rate" = incidents/population), how is the concentration (eh, also incidents/population) striking? In fact, it's only striking because of the *anecdotes* sensationalized by stories like this...
Basic human rights and working conditions in China are a big problem, but it doesn't help the cause to make up facts and statistics that don't exist...
Income is income, and it should *at least* be taxed fairly and equally. I see no reason why capital gains should be taxed at 15% and wages at up to 35% - we're not even talking a progressive tax at this point, it's basically regressive. And the argument that "it was already taxed as corporate income taxes" is bullshit. That only applies to dividends and had nothing to do with stock market speculation, derivatives, etc, which is how the really rich get richer.
The point is he was given the opportunity to be successful due to the infrastructure and business environment in the United States, so he should pay an equal *percentage* of the gains he made through that. If he doesn't like that, leave and become a citizen of some other country. Not surprisingly, even Romney is not really arguing that point.
Well, I guess I disagree as to "the only choice", maybe I'm more of a pragmatist than idealist.
But I wholeheartedly agree that Rocky Anderson would be a very interesting candidate if people took him seriously - if he were a Democratic nominee in the 2016 primary I'd probably vote for him.
Your positions are similar to many California liberals/Democrats (of which I suppose I am one). Though it seems to me many areas where the Greens and Libertarians overlap is more an accident of policy than underlying "core ideas".
Personally, I don't think it makes sense to call oneself "Libertarian" if you pick and choose - most people believe in basic human rights (they just argue what those rights are). Libertarianism is an ideology that the government be minimized across the board, not minimized for personal liberties but not for social and environmental common welfare.
I'm curious about your opinion in the many areas where the Green & Libertarian (in the US at least) parties explicitly differ, for example:
1. gun control
2. immigrant rights
3. unions
4. social welfare & health services
5. minimum wage
6. government funding for advanced education, arts, research
7. corporate limits, oversight, regulation, and anti-trust laws (see also #11)
8. net neutrality
9. public broadcasting
10. affirmative action
11. and one of the core foundations of the Green party, government regulation of environmental policy
Basically Greens say "yes" to all of those and Libertarians say "no" (I think their general rule of thumb is "if it costs me money and doesn't benefit me directly, we're against it" ;)
They basically only "agree" where the Green platform happens to overlap the basic Libertarian idea of small government. But that's more accident than policy. And of those, only military spending is really a significant cost - in that case Libertarians believe in isolationism, and Greens in pacifism. Big deal.
The Green platform doesn't believe these things because of a "small government" platform, they are happy to spend huge amounts of time and money on environmental protections, corporate oversight and limitation, social services and health care, education, etc. The Libertarians have the opposite views on all of those issues. And those issues are a huge portion of the Federal policy and budget.
Why would I care about an independent source when I want to bash Romney? And what was veiled about it? I thought it was pretty clear bashing, and pretty funny as well.
On a side note, Obama and Romney have the exact same campaign.
Their message is basically that the other guy sucks, and they will fix the country.
Meanwhile there is no discernible difference in what they actually describe they are going to do.
If you can't even figure out their differences by now, I'm glad you aren't able to vote in this American election. As I and others have said, it's not just about a couple of economic proposals (that really aren't remotely the same anyway) it's about their position on social issues, the likelihood of their nominating a couple of Supreme Court justices, and their ability to support or veto any potential laws that could "fix" some of the US domestic problems.
I'm guessing your country probably already has socialized health care, allows women to choose, and doesn't give absurd tax breaks to millionaires so that they pay half the percentage the middle class does. Well, despite Republican opposition there was some small progress made in that direction. And Romney has said one of the first things he'll do is overturn the health care act and cut taxes for corporations and high income earners. Those are just a couple examples of many...
Well, a women's right to do what she wants with her body affects over 50% of the US population, so I'd say that affects a hell of a lot more people than warrantless wiretapping every day. And gay marriage, immigration reform, and affirmative action are obviously less than 50%, but the same applies. Loss of privacy is a very bad thing, but having your basic human rights publicly taken away without anyone stopping it is even worse.
It takes a very selfish person to state that only the causes that they think affect them directly are important. And gay marriage is one of those self-evident inalienable human rights that is so fundamental to the Constitution. Remember, the Constitution was designed to describe the limits of government, not exhaustively list the rights citizens have.
And as far as "the power of Congress to declare was subverted by executive order" - you clearly didn't understand what that statement means. It means the President no longer bothers asking Congress, your example just supported my statement.
Yes, John Anderson and Ross Perot both made huge statements in their independent runs. Where is all the third part support that was supposed to come out of that?
And if you think the candidates are substantially similar, you are either a total hermit or delusional. And also don't follow history as far as 3rd party lasting popularity, as John Anderson and Ross Perot have already proved.
Heh, you are the same person who replied to me earlier - well, being from NZ you probably don't understand the US Supreme Court.
Given ages of current justices, whoever is elected will likely get to nominate 2 Supreme Court justices. If that's Romney that will likely mean overturning Roe v Wade (ie banning abortion), validating the Defense of Marriage Act barring same sex unions, overturning any possible attempt to ban assault rifles, allowing warrantless wiretapping and surveillance of US citizens, deciding on the legality of any immigration reform, and any chance at gender equality laws or affirmative action. And that's not just for the next 4 years, Supreme Court justices serve for life so it could affect individual liberties for a decade or more. (yes, you can see from my description which side I support. But if you hold the opposite opinions it's equally important, of course).
So, yes, that IS potentially at the expense of MANY peoples' futures. Not to mention the power of Congress to declare war has been completely subverted by executive order, so the current two futile and baseless wars the US are fighting are due to the actions of a single President over 10 years ago.
Calling these two candidates "similar individuals" is completely cynical and naive. Like it or not (and many Americans don't) the core beliefs of the US President has an inordinate amount of influence over both American domestic policy and many world events.
Honestly, though, I don't know NZ's electoral system but I'd imagine like many they actually get representation for minority votes? The American system is all-or-nothing for individual candidates, and the "other" parties make up about a collective 1-2% of the vote. Those things the Greens in NZ accomplished would be completely impossible as they are about as (probably less?) influential in US politics as the Scientologists..
So basically, you can vote for the Green or Libertarian Parties if you want to make a political statement no one will listen to, or you can pick the electable candidate you agree with the most (no matter how hard that is) and try to make the best of the situation that you can.
Because "executive orders" have basically made declarations of war obsolete, and the President gets to decide who he wants to bomb or invade at will.
And second, these days those Congresscritters basically flock to whatever peacock in their party shines brightest.
Finally, have you ever heard of the "veto"?
A vote for third party is a vote for the incumbent.
No, a vote for a third party is one less vote for the candidate you would have otherwise voted for if you got off your high horse and realized government and politics are about compromise and practicality (and that "you" is not you the poster, I think we agree with the point that third party votes in this elections are basically making a statement at the expense of your future...)
I don't know what's funnier, the original link I posted or the fact that Romney's real link you posted is no more useful in understanding the real numbers.
If you can't decide between the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, you probably shouldn't vote for either... they are pretty much polar opposites as far as the government's overall influence in many areas.
That said, if you want to throw darts at a board, go for the Greens. They are probably less likely to shoot you for straying onto their proppity, and they make better lifeguards.
I'm not pushing Xbox Music - I need another music service/source like I need... well something else I really don't need ;)
But given Microsoft's plan is basically to offer a really cheap Windows 8 upgrade to anyone running Windows XP and up (and XP is going EOL soon anyway)... MS may have 99 problems but installed user base ain't one...
Yeah, I was mostly making a dumb joke. You're probably right about him. In fact, search "ninjacut shill" on Google and the top results are the same crap on zdnet :)
Romney has been perfectly clear about how his tax plan works. You can read all of the details here: http://www.romneytaxplan.com/
Google hasn't released a normal size tablet yet, just the mini version.
"Normal sized tablet"? Steve Jobs would be proud...
I don't know all that much about Xbox Music, but I do know it's not Xbox-specific. It will be on Windows 8 PCs, tablets, and phones as well. Software-wise, the GP is probably correct - it has a lot of features, and iTunes really is a piece of crap anyway. But a piece of crap with massive distribution.
And I can't *imagine* how you'd make that assumption that "Xbox Music" was for Xbox only ;) Microsoft branding gnomes strike again!
Come on, Slashdot is brimming with Linux and Apple fanboys. It can't be *that* surprising that there is at least one Microsoft fanboy who reads the site, as well...
Ok, if you want to cheat and claim two I2L inverters wired together isn't creating an implicit AND gate, sure.... :)