If public comments matter this much, that's a clear sign these rules shouldn't be made by a small unelected board. Rather they should be made by the public, by having elected representatives pass a law.
I'm tempted to write "they deserve to be compensated for the risk."
That's actually not why. Here's why entertainers and sports stars get high pay:
- Entertainment has value. We know it does because people willingly pay for it. Some pay a lot, so the value is significant. - Entertainers and sports stars produce entertainment. - Technology, especially broadcasting, allows thousands or millions of people to be entertained by one performance. - A famous entertainer or sports star can thereby produce significant value for a huge number of people with one performance. The total value can be very large. Value production per unit of time is called productivity. - Sports stars and entertainers are therefore among the most economically productive people in the history of the world. And they get paid accordingly.
So? That's like saying "let's all buy [something I want that costs $1 Billion], I'll put in $200".
Anyone who wants something super expensive would be willing to put in a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the amount in order to get it. He can leverage his contribution to get your money from you, whether you agree to pay or not.
And let's say you get your way and the guy checking tickets and pointing people toward the metal detector gets paid $5000-$10000 for his night's work. What's a fair way to award these easy, no-skill jobs to the population? Why should person A get the opportunity over person B? Because person A has connections? Person B is "getting screwed".
You want a government department to oversee who works where and who gets paid how much? If not, how do you keep unfairness from happening?
What would be fair then? 10x minimum wage? 100x? Should they be required to help promote the show? Should they be required to work for free at the singer's free shows in bars and coffee shops as she was building a fan base, before she got famous?
If the stadium show gets rained out and all the tickets have to be refunded, should the workers still get paid for the setup work they did? How much? 10x minimum wage? 100x?
And how do you do "millions of dollars worth of sales each year"? How can a single individual make so much money? There's a problem with that. Somebody in your supply chain is getting royally screwed so that you can get so much profit.
At a concert, 30,000 people buy tickets to see a single entertainer. It's a good show and the fans leave happy. Who is "getting screwed" when the entertainer gets 6 figures for a few hours work?
The real problem with these ideas is that our society has no core values and we don't trust each other -- with good reason. No matter how much sense it might make, I would never trust anyone in government not to abuse their authority. I wouldn't trust the beneficiaries either.
The whole thing would just become a larger and larger transfer scheme, just like government pensions, just like Social Security Disability Insurance, just like food stamps. Government officials would take a larger and larger fraction of the expenditures for lavish salaries and pensions and benefits. Eligibility fraud would be massive, with people working for cash and not reporting it so their government check won't go down. A significant fraction of the population of Mexico and Central America would show up and apply to get a check.
And no matter how widespread the fraud, no matter how outrageous the featherbedding at the agency, you'd never be able to apply any limits to the program without being accused by the news media of starving 25% of the country to death.
So no. If Zuck wants to solve problems, he needs to start with the trust problem. And even his own Facebook is far, far from trustworthy. So it's a problem he's apparently not equipped to handle.
I'm the spiteful douchebag even though you're the one who felt the need to post something to the tune of "who gives a fuck, it's far away from me" ?
It's far away from everyone. Maybe you should literally answer the question: who does give a fuck? Lots of people pretending to care, but no one has anything to offer beyond meaningless sentiment. And you specifically decided to be mean for some reason -- which is just more meaningless sentiment, but it's the kind that makes life worse for everyone.
A place no one ever goes is messy. So...?
All I did was point out how silly your comment was.
Because pretense and meaningless sentiment about a "problem" that hurts no one is less silly?
Other than at Halloween, why would people want to randomly come here anyway?
I don't know about there. The answers for here are: to park cars, to steal delivery packages, to steal stuff out of parked cars, to solicit, to see when people aren't home so they know when they can safely break in.
No golf carts. It's couples and families with small children. They appreciate the lack of vehicle traffic driving past their home. I like the fact that the delivery guy leaves packages at the front door and they don't get stolen. Plus there are parking spaces available inside while every parking space outside is full for several blocks.
Keeping spiteful douchebags like Ogive17 from dumping stuff here is a bonus.
And, despite the phonies posting here, no one cares very much about litter on a beach people never go to. If they cared, they'd find a way to donate to a group to go there and clean it up (for some reason that transcends rational thinking). But they don't. Gotta show the flag and pretend though.
If it mattered to anyone, they'd go there and clean up. Last week I saw almost zero plastic at the local beach. Presumably because it matters to someone enough that they cleaned it up.
And yeah, your comments are correct. (But the ridiculous all caps and bold and exclamation points assure that no one will take you seriously. If you don't want to be viewed as an unhinged crank, stop acting like one. )
She did intentionally mishandle them. She intentionally, knowingly copied them to a home server. It's the same as making copies of them and taking them home.
Slashdot Mirror
Government "by the people" matters a lot more than whether Netflix has to write a check to Verizon.
If public comments matter this much, that's a clear sign these rules shouldn't be made by a small unelected board. Rather they should be made by the public, by having elected representatives pass a law.
I'm tempted to write "they deserve to be compensated for the risk."
That's actually not why. Here's why entertainers and sports stars get high pay:
- Entertainment has value. We know it does because people willingly pay for it. Some pay a lot, so the value is significant.
- Entertainers and sports stars produce entertainment.
- Technology, especially broadcasting, allows thousands or millions of people to be entertained by one performance.
- A famous entertainer or sports star can thereby produce significant value for a huge number of people with one performance. The total value can be very large. Value production per unit of time is called productivity.
- Sports stars and entertainers are therefore among the most economically productive people in the history of the world. And they get paid accordingly.
It's no more or less than that.
Whether the monthly check drops or whether it's an amount offset by taxes, the effect of eligibility fraud / tax fraud is exactly the same.
Communists actually expect people to work.
So? That's like saying "let's all buy [something I want that costs $1 Billion], I'll put in $200".
Anyone who wants something super expensive would be willing to put in a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the amount in order to get it. He can leverage his contribution to get your money from you, whether you agree to pay or not.
It seems insightful to children because children only see products. They don't understand the work that goes into production.
And let's say you get your way and the guy checking tickets and pointing people toward the metal detector gets paid $5000-$10000 for his night's work. What's a fair way to award these easy, no-skill jobs to the population? Why should person A get the opportunity over person B? Because person A has connections? Person B is "getting screwed".
You want a government department to oversee who works where and who gets paid how much? If not, how do you keep unfairness from happening?
What would be fair then? 10x minimum wage? 100x? Should they be required to help promote the show? Should they be required to work for free at the singer's free shows in bars and coffee shops as she was building a fan base, before she got famous?
If the stadium show gets rained out and all the tickets have to be refunded, should the workers still get paid for the setup work they did? How much? 10x minimum wage? 100x?
Please answer: What would be fair?
And how do you do "millions of dollars worth of sales each year"? How can a single individual make so much money? There's a problem with that. Somebody in your supply chain is getting royally screwed so that you can get so much profit.
At a concert, 30,000 people buy tickets to see a single entertainer. It's a good show and the fans leave happy. Who is "getting screwed" when the entertainer gets 6 figures for a few hours work?
The real problem with these ideas is that our society has no core values and we don't trust each other -- with good reason. No matter how much sense it might make, I would never trust anyone in government not to abuse their authority. I wouldn't trust the beneficiaries either.
The whole thing would just become a larger and larger transfer scheme, just like government pensions, just like Social Security Disability Insurance, just like food stamps. Government officials would take a larger and larger fraction of the expenditures for lavish salaries and pensions and benefits. Eligibility fraud would be massive, with people working for cash and not reporting it so their government check won't go down. A significant fraction of the population of Mexico and Central America would show up and apply to get a check.
And no matter how widespread the fraud, no matter how outrageous the featherbedding at the agency, you'd never be able to apply any limits to the program without being accused by the news media of starving 25% of the country to death.
So no. If Zuck wants to solve problems, he needs to start with the trust problem. And even his own Facebook is far, far from trustworthy. So it's a problem he's apparently not equipped to handle.
Why should already super-privileged Harvard students get yet another gift?
I'm the spiteful douchebag even though you're the one who felt the need to post something to the tune of "who gives a fuck, it's far away from me" ?
It's far away from everyone. Maybe you should literally answer the question: who does give a fuck? Lots of people pretending to care, but no one has anything to offer beyond meaningless sentiment. And you specifically decided to be mean for some reason -- which is just more meaningless sentiment, but it's the kind that makes life worse for everyone.
A place no one ever goes is messy. So...?
All I did was point out how silly your comment was.
Because pretense and meaningless sentiment about a "problem" that hurts no one is less silly?
Other than at Halloween, why would people want to randomly come here anyway?
I don't know about there. The answers for here are: to park cars, to steal delivery packages, to steal stuff out of parked cars, to solicit, to see when people aren't home so they know when they can safely break in.
The landscaping crew will have a few extra minutes of work to do cleaning that up.
Remember when Slashdot trolled us with this story about it: FCC Considers Fining Stephen Colbert Over Controversial Trump Joke?
Turns out, there was nothing actionable and the review was pro forma. Oh well. Guess we got trolled. Just like most OMG! FCC and OMG! Trump stories.
No golf carts. It's couples and families with small children. They appreciate the lack of vehicle traffic driving past their home. I like the fact that the delivery guy leaves packages at the front door and they don't get stolen. Plus there are parking spaces available inside while every parking space outside is full for several blocks.
Keeping spiteful douchebags like Ogive17 from dumping stuff here is a bonus.
And, despite the phonies posting here, no one cares very much about litter on a beach people never go to. If they cared, they'd find a way to donate to a group to go there and clean it up (for some reason that transcends rational thinking). But they don't. Gotta show the flag and pretend though.
recognize the evils that you've been doing
I'm not a religious environmentalist, so my use of plastic isn't sinful. Go ahead and worship as you wish, but leave me out of it.
So *frowny face* and then declare myself righteous because I'm frowny?
So you're suggesting we should buy Dow Chemical stock?
What's the point then?
I live in California. Almost no one here takes care of their own yard. Also the gate keeps people like you out.
If it mattered to anyone, they'd go there and clean up. Last week I saw almost zero plastic at the local beach. Presumably because it matters to someone enough that they cleaned it up.
She had intent. She knew all about email servers and how they work. She ordered an audit of her 2008 campaign's email server to try to determine who was leaking to the press.
And yeah, your comments are correct. (But the ridiculous all caps and bold and exclamation points assure that no one will take you seriously. If you don't want to be viewed as an unhinged crank, stop acting like one. )
She did intentionally mishandle them. She intentionally, knowingly copied them to a home server. It's the same as making copies of them and taking them home.