It is a little different - Chicago is the most corrupt city in the US by corruption convictions. Houston is getting up there, but Chicago is worse - and it's probably an underestimate since that's just the ranking by convictions.
No, you can't shift revenue like you can shift profits - that's why I made the distinction. Shifting profits is relatively easy - you just make shell companies, license things around, etc. Revenue is just "money we got for something" - you can't really move that around in the same way.
When you purchased a feature that detects accidents, has a 10-second delay period built in where you can cancel, and you are in an accident? Sure, a 911 dispatcher should talk to you. You can tell them what happened and that's that. If you don't want them to call you when they detect an accident, don't sign up for the feature.
Why wouldn't these devices give the user a 3 second cancel option before they report them to the police?
Why should a dispatcher be able to cold call a person in a car and interrogate them like that?
Why should that dispatcher be able to received details of their driving, location etc. reported by THEIR car AGAINST the owners wishes?
Because it's part of the Ford Emergency Assist feature, which she would have been told about and agreed to use when she bought the car. Furthermore, there's already a 10-second cancel option built in.
At what point was the OWNER consulted by their CAR on this?
When she signed up for the Emergency Assist program.
How many other devices should report their owners to authorities? Taking it to extremes should your fridge report your eating habits to your health insurance company? But what if it might save you from a heart attack? It's all fine till you lose a loved one!
If you sign up for those programs on those devices, sure. Otherwise, they shouldn't and don't.
It'd be much harder to do with antibiotics. The mosquitoes don't suffer a selective pressure from the gene drive - it doesn't hurt their chances of reproducing. Getting rid of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, of course, does.
Strictly speaking? None that I'm aware of, at this point, but I'm not an expert. China arguably was before they opened their economy up and let more people run businesses. Vietnam has a lot of central planning, but they've been cutting back slowly ever since the 80s. I'm not familiar with some of the smaller countries in Eastern Europe, but since the USSR collapsed I'd be surprised if they stuck with that sort of model.
"European-style Socialism" (as it's said in the US, at least) generally refers to a large welfare state with high taxes, also known as a social democracy, but that's not really socialism. If people are allowed to own and accumulate capital, generally you're looking at capitalism or a mixed-market economy (which is where Sweden and Finland fall).
As for Obama being a socialist... that's ridiculous, and I lose hope for humanity every time I hear that.
Sweden and Finland both have large private sectors of their economies. They have socialized some aspects, to be sure, but the Nordic Model isn't socialism. Both Finland and Sweden have large private sectors and, excepting high tax rates, are generally regarded as relatively free economically. They have a comprehensive welfare state, but that isn't socialism either. Of course, it often gets confused for socialism in the US, because "socialism" is on its way to becoming a word like "hipster" where it means whatever you want it to mean.
An important point: this includes paternity leave, which is arguably pretty important if you want to decrease the lifetime earnings gap between men and women.
Apparently, employer liability sometimes exists for paternity leave in Europe. Maternity leave appears to be entirely through social insurance, while paternity leave (in addition to being much shorter) also has a higher percentage of funding directly from the employer. Some of that might be covered by outside health insurance, I'm not sure.
There is no government-mandated parental leave on a federal level in the US. However, many companies offer at least some amount of maternity leave to salaried employees. Many hourly employees don't have it, and the amount of leave available can vary greatly by company.
No, it says that if someone goes to space and brings something back to America, the American government will recognize those property rights. It doesn't say anything about assigning property rights when the material is still in space.
Forever? Well, you're right there, nothing lasts forever. Heat death, random chance, or the Big Crush will stop anything eventually.
On a practical timescale, however, the economy can keep growing pretty much indefinitely. Advances in technology allow us to become more and more productive and raise the standard of living for everyone, including pre-industrial societies. Medical technology could definitely still be improved, that's economic growth too. FYI, most trees keep growing pretty much as long as they're alive. It's less dramatic growth, certainly, which might be what we see in our society in the future, but they still grow.
Making the sentencing of men more equal to what women get doesn't make the women lose anything - it's not a subtraction.
It is if the means of making the sentencing equal is to increase the sentencing of women to match men, you would hold that women didn't lose anything?
What I said means changing what men get to what women get - as in, decreasing the terms men get while not changing what women receive. So yes, I would hold that women don't lost anything.
You are the one calling me feminist (then denying it, as if your implications weren't clear), when I can easily scroll up and see your words and their context.
You're right, I assumed you were a feminist, based on your previous post history. If you'd rather not use that label, it doesn't matter much to me.
I didn't misrepresent anything. I spoke about inequality in general, and how single-issue inequality leveling is inherently flawed.
Ah, but you either a) represented my argument as single-issue inequality, or b) attacked what you knew wasn't my argument, and wanted to attack anyways.
You are content in your opinion being factually wrong, and lying about it to keep from having to think.
What, specifically, is "factually wrong" about my opinion? What have I lied about?
And I haven't even gotten into the reasons why your stated "inequality" isn't.
What would you prefer when the sole care giver of a child is sent to prison? Kill the kid, to keep things clean and easy? Or make them legal orphans, sending them through foster care, even when there's someone who wants to and is capable of taking care of them? Send the kids to prison, so the primary caregiver can take care of them?
No, often the choice made is to probate or shorten a caregiver's sentence so that whatever crime they did doesn't destroy the life of the child. Yes, the "anti-crime" people don't care about the child when sentencing the parent.
And women are more often victims of certain crimes. Such victimization gets considered at sentencing.
My stated inequality is based on men and women committing the same crime and receiving vastly different sentences, so your argument about who the victim is doesn't apply. Even if it did, men are generally more likely to be victims of violent crime, which tends to be the stuff you get long prison sentences for. Moreover, it's important to note that while women are often given sole custody of children, but that shouldn't shield them from the consequences of their actions. Unless the father is actually unfit (a lot of fathers without custody aren't), let the child live with him. Otherwise, do what you'd do if only the father had custody and got sent to prison.
But the MRAs *want* there to be a difference. MRA was founded on complaints about the courts. Prick husbands beating their wives, disowning their kids, then fighting for custody after they get the child support bill. It's not about equality. It's about punishing women.
This is irrelevant, as I've already said I'm not am MRA. I don't know much about the movement (except that Erin Pizzey is in it), but unless you can source that, I'm just going to ignore it as the unsupported assertion it is.
I didn't say you spoke for feminism, I said you were failing to live up to its ideals. You're also assuming that I'm not fighting for equality everywhere, but you don't know that and have no reason besides your biases to assume that.
I don't play Fallout, and that was a weird metaphor. Moreover, it's fundamentally wrong. Making the sentencing of men more equal to what women get doesn't make the women lose anything - it's not a subtraction. We should be aiming to lift everyone up to equality, not lowering everyone. Lowering everyone else isn't what I'm asking for, and you're misrepresenting my argument there. We should be addressing all forms of inequality we see, and just changing one isn't a perfect solution, but it brings us closer.
When nothing is equal, inequality can only be measured on the whole. Picking one stat to increase for one person or class almost never increases equality.
If, as you say, picking one stat to increase for one person or class doesn't increase equality, why do we change anything? Any laws we pass have to address specific things. Giving women the right to vote was, to use your metaphor, increasing a stat for one class of people, but arguing that that didn't increase equality is ludicrous.
Moreover, your 99:1 ratio is horribly, horribly off. While I think women do have it worse overall, men have more disadvantages than you think.
I'm not an MRA because I'm not part of the movement. You're conflating MRAs with everyone who has an "anti-equality" mindset, which is inaccurate. I'm also not trying to hold down any "35-pointers"; just trying to address a pretty big injustice.
As I'm for equality, I'm against your MRA privilege agenda.
As I said, you've used a flawed analogy, misrepresented my argument, and assumed a whole lot about me. You aren't for equality in any meaningful sense, if you ignore large structural inequalities just because you think the disadvantaged group has more privilege.
That one turned out to be blatant gender discrimination. I later found out they had no problem with what I was doing, as long as it was an empowered young woman doing it.
I'd love to know how you made this determination, and considering your other comment why it didn't proceed to trial resulting in a big payout for yourself. If you are willing to sue over a calculator game, and you are certain that there was gender discrimination, that one seems like a slam dunk.
Presumably, a young woman did the same thing and didn't get into trouble. As for not going to trial - men suing for gender discrimination are incredibly unlikely to a) win, and b) get much even if you do.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, potentially you could, but since most companies are taxed on profits and not revenues, there usually isn't much of an incentive to do so.
It is a little different - Chicago is the most corrupt city in the US by corruption convictions. Houston is getting up there, but Chicago is worse - and it's probably an underestimate since that's just the ranking by convictions.
No, you can't shift revenue like you can shift profits - that's why I made the distinction. Shifting profits is relatively easy - you just make shell companies, license things around, etc. Revenue is just "money we got for something" - you can't really move that around in the same way.
Not for your brain.
Note that's 10% of revenue, not profits. That is a pretty large amount.
Why does the EU think 10% of global revenue (not profits, mind you) is fair? Shouldn't that be based on revenue from the EU?
When you purchased a feature that detects accidents, has a 10-second delay period built in where you can cancel, and you are in an accident? Sure, a 911 dispatcher should talk to you. You can tell them what happened and that's that. If you don't want them to call you when they detect an accident, don't sign up for the feature.
Why wouldn't these devices give the user a 3 second cancel option before they report them to the police?
Why should a dispatcher be able to cold call a person in a car and interrogate them like that?
Why should that dispatcher be able to received details of their driving, location etc. reported by THEIR car AGAINST the owners wishes?
Because it's part of the Ford Emergency Assist feature, which she would have been told about and agreed to use when she bought the car. Furthermore, there's already a 10-second cancel option built in.
At what point was the OWNER consulted by their CAR on this?
When she signed up for the Emergency Assist program.
How many other devices should report their owners to authorities? Taking it to extremes should your fridge report your eating habits to your health insurance company? But what if it might save you from a heart attack? It's all fine till you lose a loved one!
If you sign up for those programs on those devices, sure. Otherwise, they shouldn't and don't.
It'd be much harder to do with antibiotics. The mosquitoes don't suffer a selective pressure from the gene drive - it doesn't hurt their chances of reproducing. Getting rid of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, of course, does.
Strictly speaking? None that I'm aware of, at this point, but I'm not an expert. China arguably was before they opened their economy up and let more people run businesses. Vietnam has a lot of central planning, but they've been cutting back slowly ever since the 80s. I'm not familiar with some of the smaller countries in Eastern Europe, but since the USSR collapsed I'd be surprised if they stuck with that sort of model.
"European-style Socialism" (as it's said in the US, at least) generally refers to a large welfare state with high taxes, also known as a social democracy, but that's not really socialism. If people are allowed to own and accumulate capital, generally you're looking at capitalism or a mixed-market economy (which is where Sweden and Finland fall).
As for Obama being a socialist... that's ridiculous, and I lose hope for humanity every time I hear that.
Sweden and Finland both have large private sectors of their economies. They have socialized some aspects, to be sure, but the Nordic Model isn't socialism. Both Finland and Sweden have large private sectors and, excepting high tax rates, are generally regarded as relatively free economically. They have a comprehensive welfare state, but that isn't socialism either. Of course, it often gets confused for socialism in the US, because "socialism" is on its way to becoming a word like "hipster" where it means whatever you want it to mean.
An important point: this includes paternity leave, which is arguably pretty important if you want to decrease the lifetime earnings gap between men and women.
Apparently, employer liability sometimes exists for paternity leave in Europe. Maternity leave appears to be entirely through social insurance, while paternity leave (in addition to being much shorter) also has a higher percentage of funding directly from the employer. Some of that might be covered by outside health insurance, I'm not sure.
There is no government-mandated parental leave on a federal level in the US. However, many companies offer at least some amount of maternity leave to salaried employees. Many hourly employees don't have it, and the amount of leave available can vary greatly by company.
Nice! Cave Johnson had some excellent lines.
No, it says that if someone goes to space and brings something back to America, the American government will recognize those property rights. It doesn't say anything about assigning property rights when the material is still in space.
Forever? Well, you're right there, nothing lasts forever. Heat death, random chance, or the Big Crush will stop anything eventually.
On a practical timescale, however, the economy can keep growing pretty much indefinitely. Advances in technology allow us to become more and more productive and raise the standard of living for everyone, including pre-industrial societies. Medical technology could definitely still be improved, that's economic growth too. FYI, most trees keep growing pretty much as long as they're alive. It's less dramatic growth, certainly, which might be what we see in our society in the future, but they still grow.
But can you recharge a lemon? I'm actually curious, that would be interesting.
Making the sentencing of men more equal to what women get doesn't make the women lose anything - it's not a subtraction.
It is if the means of making the sentencing equal is to increase the sentencing of women to match men, you would hold that women didn't lose anything?
What I said means changing what men get to what women get - as in, decreasing the terms men get while not changing what women receive. So yes, I would hold that women don't lost anything.
You are the one calling me feminist (then denying it, as if your implications weren't clear), when I can easily scroll up and see your words and their context.
You're right, I assumed you were a feminist, based on your previous post history. If you'd rather not use that label, it doesn't matter much to me.
I didn't misrepresent anything. I spoke about inequality in general, and how single-issue inequality leveling is inherently flawed.
Ah, but you either a) represented my argument as single-issue inequality, or b) attacked what you knew wasn't my argument, and wanted to attack anyways.
You are content in your opinion being factually wrong, and lying about it to keep from having to think.
What, specifically, is "factually wrong" about my opinion? What have I lied about?
And I haven't even gotten into the reasons why your stated "inequality" isn't. What would you prefer when the sole care giver of a child is sent to prison? Kill the kid, to keep things clean and easy? Or make them legal orphans, sending them through foster care, even when there's someone who wants to and is capable of taking care of them? Send the kids to prison, so the primary caregiver can take care of them? No, often the choice made is to probate or shorten a caregiver's sentence so that whatever crime they did doesn't destroy the life of the child. Yes, the "anti-crime" people don't care about the child when sentencing the parent. And women are more often victims of certain crimes. Such victimization gets considered at sentencing.
My stated inequality is based on men and women committing the same crime and receiving vastly different sentences, so your argument about who the victim is doesn't apply. Even if it did, men are generally more likely to be victims of violent crime, which tends to be the stuff you get long prison sentences for. Moreover, it's important to note that while women are often given sole custody of children, but that shouldn't shield them from the consequences of their actions. Unless the father is actually unfit (a lot of fathers without custody aren't), let the child live with him. Otherwise, do what you'd do if only the father had custody and got sent to prison.
But the MRAs *want* there to be a difference. MRA was founded on complaints about the courts. Prick husbands beating their wives, disowning their kids, then fighting for custody after they get the child support bill. It's not about equality. It's about punishing women.
This is irrelevant, as I've already said I'm not am MRA. I don't know much about the movement (except that Erin Pizzey is in it), but unless you can source that, I'm just going to ignore it as the unsupported assertion it is.
I don't play Fallout, and that was a weird metaphor. Moreover, it's fundamentally wrong. Making the sentencing of men more equal to what women get doesn't make the women lose anything - it's not a subtraction. We should be aiming to lift everyone up to equality, not lowering everyone. Lowering everyone else isn't what I'm asking for, and you're misrepresenting my argument there. We should be addressing all forms of inequality we see, and just changing one isn't a perfect solution, but it brings us closer.
When nothing is equal, inequality can only be measured on the whole. Picking one stat to increase for one person or class almost never increases equality.
If, as you say, picking one stat to increase for one person or class doesn't increase equality, why do we change anything? Any laws we pass have to address specific things. Giving women the right to vote was, to use your metaphor, increasing a stat for one class of people, but arguing that that didn't increase equality is ludicrous.
Moreover, your 99:1 ratio is horribly, horribly off. While I think women do have it worse overall, men have more disadvantages than you think.
I'm not an MRA because I'm not part of the movement. You're conflating MRAs with everyone who has an "anti-equality" mindset, which is inaccurate. I'm also not trying to hold down any "35-pointers"; just trying to address a pretty big injustice.
As I'm for equality, I'm against your MRA privilege agenda.
As I said, you've used a flawed analogy, misrepresented my argument, and assumed a whole lot about me. You aren't for equality in any meaningful sense, if you ignore large structural inequalities just because you think the disadvantaged group has more privilege.
I'm not an MRA. I want people to be treated equally; isn't that what feminism is about? Seems like you're the one not living up to feminist ideals.
That's actually really interesting, thanks!
Given the historic tensions between Russia and Finland, you could probably find someone to do it for 5k or so, if you shopped around.
I just used my mod point this morning, or I'd have given you one for the reference.
That one turned out to be blatant gender discrimination. I later found out they had no problem with what I was doing, as long as it was an empowered young woman doing it.
I'd love to know how you made this determination, and considering your other comment why it didn't proceed to trial resulting in a big payout for yourself. If you are willing to sue over a calculator game, and you are certain that there was gender discrimination, that one seems like a slam dunk.
Presumably, a young woman did the same thing and didn't get into trouble. As for not going to trial - men suing for gender discrimination are incredibly unlikely to a) win, and b) get much even if you do.