It does not matter if they found 4.9 microfiber of size below of 2.5 micrometer. The question is : does it have a significant impact on biological activity of human at those level, and is it below or above the legally set quantity ? That is the correct question. If the answer is no, then my own comment is "meh ?".
Removing minimum wage until that person can barely pay enough to eat in spite of working their number of hours, while not having UBI or a safety net more or less means you are creating a class of indentured or downright enslaved people, and in the end run you STILL have to have a replacement for job as otherwise such people will sooner or later find out that violence is a better solution to quasi slavery. On the contrary I think to avoid that scenario it would be MUCH better to have a high minimum wage, have a QUICK robotization, and then have politics and rich folk confronted with the problem quickly rather than slowly, thus forcing the same end solution (UBI+ safety nets) with far more minimal pains.
I keep hearing from Session and others "this was unconstitutional". Well then if it was, which amendment or part of the constitution did it break ? No seriously, since you seem to hold the same argument , maybe you can tell us ?
It is quite a different picture with industrial which , while peaking during the day, still needs a lot at night for 24/7 plants. That is why base load is important and why nuclear plant even have their baseload at night. Your residential and commercial capacity can probably be covered by renewable. Your industrial needs ? Not so much.
To do what it would have to be linked some sort of performance process, or economic indicator. Hint : it does not. Bitcoin at this point is solely a commodity, a very speculative and volatile one, chinese money manipulation or not (see above post on Chinese money policy) it could drop toward 1000 dollar or much lower at a moment notice, indeoendenteky of world economy.
If i HAVE to buy a product and the choice is two 1 star product, i will buy the one which has the more buyer because there is a better chance the company does not go under leaving me with no support. If you cannot get quality, then go for the mass.
I am pretty sure you can't have blue tooth device having signal go through your body. When it is my back pocket, I cannot hear any signals. Having tried with two different manufacturer I was told that if there is nothing to bounce the signal off, e.g. outside, it does not go through the body and that is why it gets interrupted, and they recommend a front pocket. Now i don't know if it is a load of crap, an EE can chime in, that would be interesting to know, my front pocket in the mean time being too loaded;).
You dont have to prove that ALL softwate developper in the U.S. is in bed with the cia/nsa to not want to use it, it is about risk. And thus you condemned all country to reinvent the wheel as no software whatsoever is trustable.
20K is poor by standard of bay area, yet this will make you in the top percentage in many other countries. What count is not the absolute value of your earning, but what do you earn compared to the standard of living of your local region. So $115K could be actually not that much, if after tax you still have to pay $4K rent.
Chose a shop at random. It will accept your USD/EUR/GBP/Whatever. Try to pay as bitcoin, watch them thinking you are insane. The lack of penetzration in shop make bitcoin solely a speculating commodity and not a currency. Facit : for 99+% of the population, the one who count, bitcoin do not exists.
I had a package of cable TV, then I simply used the move to cancel it (local laws state that you can cancel a contract on a move). I got a call telling me I could still get the package where I lived, well yuppee doo. I cut the cord and I am not looking back. In the last 5 years I watched *once* what was on cable. The rest was streaming, youtube and other providers.
Capitalism IS grand at least compared to other economical systems. What is not grand in this story, are the IP laws , brought and paid for by corp to protect their ip forever.
Again let me reiterate : we can lie at the feet of the nazi which paraded that day, that they are violent thug, that they are racist, that they are anachronism, chauvisnistic, that their ideology stink worst than dog's excrement etc... But what we cannot do is accuse the whole group as being responsible for the murder of the woman - let me quote again:
Except the only thing that these people are actually doing is saying shit you don't like.
And running people over with their cars. Tiny little detail you left out.
While I agree it is astounding, your comparison with what cheapened with more or less a revolution, is not correct. The US is supposed to be a stable democracy and there are laws and judicial ways to get a status removed. Mob rule is not one of them. What next ? If a mob decided to destroy one of the general of the north, would you accept it ? Maybe a Rosa Park statue by white supremacist ? If you don't like the idea, then maybe you are accepting mob rule for the viewpoint you like... And refuse it for those you dislike... Then it ain't a state of justice and law anymore. The one destroying the status should have tried/continue to try for a legal way, and if the legal way fail, campaign loudly on media to show the politician refusing to remove the status. Destroy the narrative that it was just to remember confederate, when most of those were done at a time of jim crow laws, EVEN in state which sided with the union (and therefore cannot be about the confederation but certainly about racism), point out that the groups setting up those statues did it for racist reason (IRC daughter of confederacy).
But taking it into your own hand and destroying public property is not good, and should be punished. Otherwise what will be next ? Public lynchage ?
But please let me correct you : ONE of them ran over an innocent person , murdering her. Not the whole group. ONE hacker hacking a medical device and killing one person does not make all other responsible. ONE Christian killing a gay does not make all christian responsible. ONE Muslim killing anybody with an IED does not make all responsible. One Gamersgate guy sending death threat to Anita Sarkezan does not make the whole group bad. I am sorry but I CANNOT stand such generalization, whether they are done on my friend or group I belong to (athiest, scientist, Pathfinder/DnD roleplayer - go ahead laugh) or group I do not belong to (all others above).
What you MAY have wanted to tell is that the racist supremacist asshole did not condemn loudly enough the action of the scumbag murderer. BUT again, this is the same stupid reasonning which is used against other group so it makes me uncomfortable. Condemn people for the action they do , do not condemn whole group for the action other did. Yes even the neo nazi. But you can condemn them all of having stupid racist ideology and so forth, it is after all how they advertize themselves, but condemning the whole group for the murder of the woman is incorrect.
if you took the minimum wage of the '60s and '70s and adjusted it for inflation
Partially correct, the minimum wage adjusted for inflation would be $6.65 from 1960, and it is $7 today. http://www.stateofworkingameri... the problem is not the minimum wage, but that some stuff did increase vastly above the inflation. A 2 bedroom in 1980 in San Francisco was $500 / $600, but now it vastly increase to $4000 in some extreme cases. Inflation adjusted rent should be around $1400.
https://medium.com/@mccannatro...
For all practical intent and purpose, due to housing speculation (which is still frankly going on) and some ancillaries effect which do not help but increase the problem (e.g. airbnb , rent apartment converted to quasi hotel rooms), rent has become nearly 50% or 60% of the monthly cost of people if they stay in city center, so they are relegated far away from their work, which decrease their likelihood of entertainment or self education (it is hard to go to a side course when you spend 4 hours on travel during the day) and increase stress. Basically I agree with you it is jsut that your data is not 100% correct.
I have long said that, in the west, the biggest censorship issue is private company not wanting certain speec and thuis relegating offline where it can die or spread the rot unbeknown. I feel split on the issue , my anti nazi side feels happy that the daily stormer get dinged, but my anti censorship side see the clear problem here.
but if you're the type of society that can fly at 10% c, those are pretty simple tasks that might take 10k years to build a generator, 15k years to build the transmitter, etc. They just seems like big deals because we're nowhere near that kind of specie.
But the point is even that KIND of specie might not even exists at all. The energy requirement to fly at 10% c are enormous - for the time span you cite-, and pretty much the only things which could provide a fuel for that is anti matter. Problem is, anti matter is expensive to produce so you would need enormous facility around your sun to catch the energy and then use it to produce at a factor lower than 1 anti matter, then store it. That is quite a few steps which we are not even sure is even doable.
IMO parsimony principle here is at play : maybe the energy and dedication requirement are high enough that no specie make it. Other stuff kills high tech civ , collapse them, before they can go that far, heck maybe global warming is enough to kill their infrastructural and food production in that they spend their time and energy fighting it. Maybe far more simply, the universe is a serie of island of life, which are too far away in both time , distance and dedication to travel - and thus never ever communicate or are aware of each other existence.
In many EU country not only you HAVE to legally report any incident , but you are under the threat of a prison sentence if you don't assist (e.g. unterlassene Hilfeleistung (failure to provide assistance) is a crime under section 323(c)). You have no right to report incident anonymously, in fact you have a duty to stay until the rescuer are here to take over, you have a duty to give possible help you are able to (as far as you are able). There are similar laws in some other EU countries (not all mind you). Pretty much why a few month ago when there was some old guy lying down in blood, and a pair of adult was a bit non plussed as what to do, I *had* to stop and help, help make the person warm, try to check if they had brain problem , etc... Until the ambulance came. Now I would have stopped , the law be there or not, because I see it as the moral thing to do. But even if I did not have that view, I was legally obligated.
While I agree on the post, I disagree it applies only where inequalities goes in disfavor of women. As you put yourself "those who do want to be in those professions will suffer unnecessary social penalties." and "My guess is that men are taught that they are the breadwinner" in other word a man going into teaching could suffer social penalties - therefore there is an inherent social and sexist component against men and it should be fought against in teaching. "If they don't care, we shouldn't change their minds. To this strawman I answer" to this strawman I answer, first the social penalty is your claim, demonstrate it does exists rather than simply being a choice, and there are certainly enough counter example of people wanting to do such job, secondly you still did not explain why we should correct it when only when the imbalance is in perceived disfavor of women. Again, pretending as I read everywhere that teacher get paid less or there is a perceived social penalty for men, does not explain why we should not strive for equality of outcome there too. My point is One either strive for equality of outcome EVERYWHERE or one admit one is biased. Personally I just for equality of opportunity.
Outcome is a good indicator for inequality of opportunity.
The correlation need to be proven job by job , as in many case, it is not the case. There are many job where there will be inequality of outcome because simply some gender are not interrested into the job, even with fully equal opportunity. The basic example given are usually hauling garbage, army job (even if you eliminated the inherent sexism, there is no 50/50 of women/men wanting to go into the army), and various job like nurse or teacher. There is *some* inherent sexism, but that does not explain 100% why in some job you have a 80/20 toward one gender or the other. What do explain it is that some gender are more inherentely attracted toward one type of job than the other. Now you could argue that this is due to society and young mind get warped and set in a specific role at some age, but that still leave there is a reason women are seen as more social oriented and men are item oriented. In fact in some job, like teacher : Worldwide there is 64% teacher which are female, and in the US it is even around 85%. Shall we enforce an equality of outcome to have 50%/50% male teachers ? I am personally against it, we should have an equality of opportunity , do not put additional obstacle agaisnt male teacher, but we should not enforce it. But you certainly seem for enforcing having more male teacher, no matter the consequences, and you automatically suspect sexism.
I am not conservative , right winged. I am left winged (a look at my post history for the last 10 years should show that) and for TRUE equality of opportunity, something we did not have until recently with women and skin color minorities being suppressed consciously or unconsciously by the work environment, HR, and the various team leaders. But i am for a good discourse because women and men are different on how they handle situation, how they view social activities, and how they will have bias. This naturally impact on how they will for example chose a job, and while part of it is socially learned, part of it is inherent to sex (I avoid gender due to the pitfall of TG). And that is where I break peace with many of my friends on the left side. I am against equality of outcome. Because you then inherently 1) spit of all sex science and spit on the difference between women and men 2) add inefficiencies by having less good candidate over take better candidate to match an outcome "more women , more minorities". Naturally the converse is that since society move slowly, minorities and women would have been screwed for longer had we not have the equality of outcome. That may be true too. But that still does not make it right or better than equality of opportunity. But where it goes to the "wrong terribly wrong" deep end, is when you get fired for having this opinion like this seem to be in this case. Granted I did not read the full memo, but what I overflew seem to be quite clear : google bent over and fired him to avoid looking "sexist". And thus died any discourse right or left at google.
Feminism at its pure form us about establishing right for women, and when right for men are stronger, to strive for an equality. But in its pure form feminism does not ask for right for men to be equal when the right for women are stronger, in other word it does work only in one direction, and is not about gender equality, but solely about women's right. Now many major feminist long recognized that in such form it could lead to problems, or they are simply proponent for gender equality, recognize that there are situation where men right are lower (a well known example are family courts), but this is not feminism at its core and in fact some feminist are very charicatural mirror of chauvinist men and want more right for women then men - thankfully a shrill minority but they do exists . That is why i long stopped being feminist and i am now a gender equlitarian : Rights wrong where they are , no matter the gender.
What the banks did back in 2008 was maybe malicious, unethical, stupid etc.... But not illegal - that is why we tryed to change the law with, laws that republican in their immense wisdom repelled (/sarcasm). On the other hand what VW did was downright illegal. That is the main difference.
Slashdot Mirror
It does not matter if they found 4.9 microfiber of size below of 2.5 micrometer. The question is : does it have a significant impact on biological activity of human at those level, and is it below or above the legally set quantity ? That is the correct question. If the answer is no, then my own comment is "meh ?".
Removing minimum wage until that person can barely pay enough to eat in spite of working their number of hours, while not having UBI or a safety net more or less means you are creating a class of indentured or downright enslaved people, and in the end run you STILL have to have a replacement for job as otherwise such people will sooner or later find out that violence is a better solution to quasi slavery. On the contrary I think to avoid that scenario it would be MUCH better to have a high minimum wage, have a QUICK robotization, and then have politics and rich folk confronted with the problem quickly rather than slowly, thus forcing the same end solution (UBI+ safety nets) with far more minimal pains.
I keep hearing from Session and others "this was unconstitutional". Well then if it was, which amendment or part of the constitution did it break ? No seriously, since you seem to hold the same argument , maybe you can tell us ?
It is quite a different picture with industrial which , while peaking during the day, still needs a lot at night for 24/7 plants. That is why base load is important and why nuclear plant even have their baseload at night. Your residential and commercial capacity can probably be covered by renewable. Your industrial needs ? Not so much.
To do what it would have to be linked some sort of performance process, or economic indicator. Hint : it does not. Bitcoin at this point is solely a commodity, a very speculative and volatile one, chinese money manipulation or not (see above post on Chinese money policy) it could drop toward 1000 dollar or much lower at a moment notice, indeoendenteky of world economy.
If i HAVE to buy a product and the choice is two 1 star product, i will buy the one which has the more buyer because there is a better chance the company does not go under leaving me with no support. If you cannot get quality, then go for the mass.
I am pretty sure you can't have blue tooth device having signal go through your body. When it is my back pocket, I cannot hear any signals. Having tried with two different manufacturer I was told that if there is nothing to bounce the signal off, e.g. outside, it does not go through the body and that is why it gets interrupted, and they recommend a front pocket. Now i don't know if it is a load of crap, an EE can chime in, that would be interesting to know, my front pocket in the mean time being too loaded ;).
You dont have to prove that ALL softwate developper in the U.S. is in bed with the cia/nsa to not want to use it, it is about risk. And thus you condemned all country to reinvent the wheel as no software whatsoever is trustable.
20K is poor by standard of bay area, yet this will make you in the top percentage in many other countries. What count is not the absolute value of your earning, but what do you earn compared to the standard of living of your local region. So $115K could be actually not that much, if after tax you still have to pay $4K rent.
Chose a shop at random. It will accept your USD/EUR/GBP/Whatever. Try to pay as bitcoin, watch them thinking you are insane. The lack of penetzration in shop make bitcoin solely a speculating commodity and not a currency. Facit : for 99+% of the population, the one who count, bitcoin do not exists.
I had a package of cable TV, then I simply used the move to cancel it (local laws state that you can cancel a contract on a move). I got a call telling me I could still get the package where I lived, well yuppee doo. I cut the cord and I am not looking back. In the last 5 years I watched *once* what was on cable. The rest was streaming, youtube and other providers.
And as bankruptcy have shown in the past, such data is considered an asset and can be sold to highest bidder and/or anybody interested in.
Capitalism IS grand at least compared to other economical systems. What is not grand in this story, are the IP laws , brought and paid for by corp to protect their ip forever.
While I agree it is astounding, your comparison with what cheapened with more or less a revolution, is not correct. The US is supposed to be a stable democracy and there are laws and judicial ways to get a status removed. Mob rule is not one of them. What next ? If a mob decided to destroy one of the general of the north, would you accept it ? Maybe a Rosa Park statue by white supremacist ? If you don't like the idea, then maybe you are accepting mob rule for the viewpoint you like... And refuse it for those you dislike... Then it ain't a state of justice and law anymore. The one destroying the status should have tried/continue to try for a legal way, and if the legal way fail, campaign loudly on media to show the politician refusing to remove the status. Destroy the narrative that it was just to remember confederate, when most of those were done at a time of jim crow laws, EVEN in state which sided with the union (and therefore cannot be about the confederation but certainly about racism), point out that the groups setting up those statues did it for racist reason (IRC daughter of confederacy).
But taking it into your own hand and destroying public property is not good, and should be punished. Otherwise what will be next ? Public lynchage ?
But please let me correct you : ONE of them ran over an innocent person , murdering her. Not the whole group. ONE hacker hacking a medical device and killing one person does not make all other responsible. ONE Christian killing a gay does not make all christian responsible. ONE Muslim killing anybody with an IED does not make all responsible. One Gamersgate guy sending death threat to Anita Sarkezan does not make the whole group bad. I am sorry but I CANNOT stand such generalization, whether they are done on my friend or group I belong to (athiest, scientist, Pathfinder/DnD roleplayer - go ahead laugh) or group I do not belong to (all others above).
What you MAY have wanted to tell is that the racist supremacist asshole did not condemn loudly enough the action of the scumbag murderer. BUT again, this is the same stupid reasonning which is used against other group so it makes me uncomfortable. Condemn people for the action they do , do not condemn whole group for the action other did. Yes even the neo nazi. But you can condemn them all of having stupid racist ideology and so forth, it is after all how they advertize themselves, but condemning the whole group for the murder of the woman is incorrect.
Partially correct, the minimum wage adjusted for inflation would be $6.65 from 1960, and it is $7 today. http://www.stateofworkingameri... the problem is not the minimum wage, but that some stuff did increase vastly above the inflation. A 2 bedroom in 1980 in San Francisco was $500 / $600, but now it vastly increase to $4000 in some extreme cases. Inflation adjusted rent should be around $1400. https://medium.com/@mccannatro... For all practical intent and purpose, due to housing speculation (which is still frankly going on) and some ancillaries effect which do not help but increase the problem (e.g. airbnb , rent apartment converted to quasi hotel rooms), rent has become nearly 50% or 60% of the monthly cost of people if they stay in city center, so they are relegated far away from their work, which decrease their likelihood of entertainment or self education (it is hard to go to a side course when you spend 4 hours on travel during the day) and increase stress. Basically I agree with you it is jsut that your data is not 100% correct.
I have long said that, in the west, the biggest censorship issue is private company not wanting certain speec and thuis relegating offline where it can die or spread the rot unbeknown. I feel split on the issue , my anti nazi side feels happy that the daily stormer get dinged, but my anti censorship side see the clear problem here.
But the point is even that KIND of specie might not even exists at all. The energy requirement to fly at 10% c are enormous - for the time span you cite-, and pretty much the only things which could provide a fuel for that is anti matter. Problem is, anti matter is expensive to produce so you would need enormous facility around your sun to catch the energy and then use it to produce at a factor lower than 1 anti matter, then store it. That is quite a few steps which we are not even sure is even doable.
IMO parsimony principle here is at play : maybe the energy and dedication requirement are high enough that no specie make it. Other stuff kills high tech civ , collapse them, before they can go that far, heck maybe global warming is enough to kill their infrastructural and food production in that they spend their time and energy fighting it. Maybe far more simply, the universe is a serie of island of life, which are too far away in both time , distance and dedication to travel - and thus never ever communicate or are aware of each other existence.
In many EU country not only you HAVE to legally report any incident , but you are under the threat of a prison sentence if you don't assist (e.g. unterlassene Hilfeleistung (failure to provide assistance) is a crime under section 323(c)). You have no right to report incident anonymously, in fact you have a duty to stay until the rescuer are here to take over, you have a duty to give possible help you are able to (as far as you are able). There are similar laws in some other EU countries (not all mind you). Pretty much why a few month ago when there was some old guy lying down in blood, and a pair of adult was a bit non plussed as what to do, I *had* to stop and help, help make the person warm, try to check if they had brain problem , etc... Until the ambulance came. Now I would have stopped , the law be there or not, because I see it as the moral thing to do. But even if I did not have that view, I was legally obligated.
While I agree on the post, I disagree it applies only where inequalities goes in disfavor of women. As you put yourself "those who do want to be in those professions will suffer unnecessary social penalties." and "My guess is that men are taught that they are the breadwinner" in other word a man going into teaching could suffer social penalties - therefore there is an inherent social and sexist component against men and it should be fought against in teaching. "If they don't care, we shouldn't change their minds. To this strawman I answer" to this strawman I answer, first the social penalty is your claim, demonstrate it does exists rather than simply being a choice, and there are certainly enough counter example of people wanting to do such job, secondly you still did not explain why we should correct it when only when the imbalance is in perceived disfavor of women. Again, pretending as I read everywhere that teacher get paid less or there is a perceived social penalty for men, does not explain why we should not strive for equality of outcome there too. My point is One either strive for equality of outcome EVERYWHERE or one admit one is biased. Personally I just for equality of opportunity.
The correlation need to be proven job by job , as in many case, it is not the case. There are many job where there will be inequality of outcome because simply some gender are not interrested into the job, even with fully equal opportunity. The basic example given are usually hauling garbage, army job (even if you eliminated the inherent sexism, there is no 50/50 of women/men wanting to go into the army), and various job like nurse or teacher. There is *some* inherent sexism, but that does not explain 100% why in some job you have a 80/20 toward one gender or the other. What do explain it is that some gender are more inherentely attracted toward one type of job than the other. Now you could argue that this is due to society and young mind get warped and set in a specific role at some age, but that still leave there is a reason women are seen as more social oriented and men are item oriented. In fact in some job, like teacher : Worldwide there is 64% teacher which are female, and in the US it is even around 85%. Shall we enforce an equality of outcome to have 50%/50% male teachers ? I am personally against it, we should have an equality of opportunity , do not put additional obstacle agaisnt male teacher, but we should not enforce it. But you certainly seem for enforcing having more male teacher, no matter the consequences, and you automatically suspect sexism.
I am not conservative , right winged. I am left winged (a look at my post history for the last 10 years should show that) and for TRUE equality of opportunity, something we did not have until recently with women and skin color minorities being suppressed consciously or unconsciously by the work environment, HR, and the various team leaders. But i am for a good discourse because women and men are different on how they handle situation, how they view social activities, and how they will have bias. This naturally impact on how they will for example chose a job, and while part of it is socially learned, part of it is inherent to sex (I avoid gender due to the pitfall of TG). And that is where I break peace with many of my friends on the left side. I am against equality of outcome. Because you then inherently 1) spit of all sex science and spit on the difference between women and men 2) add inefficiencies by having less good candidate over take better candidate to match an outcome "more women , more minorities". Naturally the converse is that since society move slowly, minorities and women would have been screwed for longer had we not have the equality of outcome. That may be true too. But that still does not make it right or better than equality of opportunity. But where it goes to the "wrong terribly wrong" deep end, is when you get fired for having this opinion like this seem to be in this case. Granted I did not read the full memo, but what I overflew seem to be quite clear : google bent over and fired him to avoid looking "sexist". And thus died any discourse right or left at google.
Feminism at its pure form us about establishing right for women, and when right for men are stronger, to strive for an equality. But in its pure form feminism does not ask for right for men to be equal when the right for women are stronger, in other word it does work only in one direction, and is not about gender equality, but solely about women's right. Now many major feminist long recognized that in such form it could lead to problems, or they are simply proponent for gender equality, recognize that there are situation where men right are lower (a well known example are family courts), but this is not feminism at its core and in fact some feminist are very charicatural mirror of chauvinist men and want more right for women then men - thankfully a shrill minority but they do exists . That is why i long stopped being feminist and i am now a gender equlitarian : Rights wrong where they are , no matter the gender.
What the banks did back in 2008 was maybe malicious, unethical, stupid etc.... But not illegal - that is why we tryed to change the law with, laws that republican in their immense wisdom repelled (/sarcasm). On the other hand what VW did was downright illegal. That is the main difference.