BTW I agree, but was using it to get to a point: A free market solution (using real costs) can't work if you can't refuse to do business based on that price.
And that's one of the reasons why health care has no place in the Free Market.
Wow, such an insightful statement contained in a mere simple declarative sentence that is nothing more than a mild ad hominem. It's not your fault, of course, that mods are stupid. Congratulations on your unearned moderation. Perhaps you could follow up your post with another that explains why AC's post is shockingly naive?
Sorry to hurt your feelings. It's quite simple, really. Management is often not very good at identifying the real performers and critical people in a department or team. They make decisions based on politics, who kisses the most ass and who is related to the boss's wife. Most people who have been around the block a few times have learned this. YMMV.
They already are trying it and finding less than 35% of people actually do it. This is up from 20% a few years ago, mainly due to massive advertising.
Assuming that 50% of people would benefit and the other 50% would lose, that means a solid 15% of the population is intentionally refusing to do it. Note, that number is probably higher, as most people think they are better drivers than they actually are. Let's say that 70% of the population THINKS they would benefit from it, which means that approximately 50% of their target market says "NO thanks, I like my privacy."
Well, that's encouraging at least. Maybe people will wake up and smell the surveillance.
EXACTLY! People here can say what they want about Trump, but I think he is going to be the only candidate to put a stop to this kind of thing happening.
Disney could also have saved the money if they just didn't pay the workers at all, let the debt pile up and shot everyone trying to go to the courts to demand the money. Also this is deemed illegal for some reason.
But they're just trying to make a profit! Everyone knows anything is okay as long as you're trying to make a profit! Corporations are barely getting by as it is!
Company wants to save money by replacing overpaid workers with cheaper ones? Story at 11.
Really, I fail to see what the issue is here. This is a corporation doing what corporations do - try to minimize expenditures. These people were likely at will employees as as such have no guarantee of job security. If you are making a lot of money, expect to be under the microscope when the cost cutters come around. If you are truly worth it, you have nothing to worry about. This is just crybaby bullshit.
For someone coming off as smug and superior, you are shockingly naive.
So, what, they want to be our nannies, and they think people will just let themselves be tracked to prop up their failing business model?
No, they think people will let themselves be tracked for BIG SAVINGS! and convenience. Based on what I have seen of people's behavior and ability to not think things through, I think it might work.
You've made your bed, time to enjoy your nap while the adults clean up the mess liberal Democrats made yet again.
I stand amazed at the projection coming from the Right. The Bush Administration spent 8 years nearly ruining this country; starting unnecessary wars, curtailing civil liberties, and implementing irresponsible tax cuts. By the end of his presidency even hardcore Republicans were running away from him and the whole country couldn't wait to elect a different president. Yet you still write sentences like that above and expect to be taken seriously.
Based on your comments, like most people, you believe that in order for citizens to have a right, it must be granted by the constitution. In fact, it is just the opposite. The constitution grants rights and responsibilities to the government and any responsibility not explicitly granted to the government remains the right of the people. Many of the founders specifically objected to the Bill of Rights for this reason because it made it seem like if the constitution wasn't giving a right to the people, then they didn't have that right. You don't only have the rights in the bill of rights. You have ALL rights unless a specific limitation is put in place in the constitution granting the government dominion over a particular activity. Do not fall into the trap of saying that if it isn't in the Bill of RIghts, it's not a right.
That's why the 9th Amendment is my favorite amendment.
When I first heard the term "Homeland" used to describe the United States, I knew in which direction we were heading.
I know what you're getting at, but it's probably not a good idea to throw the word fascism around at things that aren't, because you dilute the word to mean things that it doesn't, thus its harder to expose real fascists when they come around.
Well, then it's a good thing I didn't use that word!;-) What I meant was "Homeland" is a propaganda word. It is meant to rally people around the country and promote feelings of patriotism and belonging. It was not used to refer to the US until after 9/11. And it is of a piece with the Bush Administration's exploitation of that event to enact their agenda. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the substance of that exploitation and agenda remain into the present.
I am a student of PR and propaganda, so when I heard the country being referred to as the Homeland it made my ears perk up. I immediately recognized it.
That America is beginning to forget the historical reasons why anonymous speech is a protected class of speech is scary. That America has pretty much decided all other freedoms are options is utterly terrifying.
Americans are not taught real history. They are taught the sanitized, approved version. Likewise they don't really think for themselves. They usually select their opinion from a menu presented by the mass media.
.... as we creep slowly-- no rapidly descend towards fascism. Why don't they rename DHS to DACL-- Department of Anti-CIvil Liberty?
What, Homeland security is not fascist enough for your taste ? The program is all in the name. It has the same sound as committe for state security. You know, the whole keep the fatherland safe mantra.
When I first heard the term "Homeland" used to describe the United States, I knew in which direction we were heading.
It's called FALSE AND MISLEADING ADVERTISING YOU WITLESS FUCKING MORON.
Yeah, and what are you going to do about it? Nothing! Because if you take it to small claims court, it will just drain 8 hours out of your life and they probably won't show up and even if you got the judgment they'd just stiff you anyway; so what you are going to do is piss and moan like an impotent jerk, and then bend over and take it up the tailpipe!
Okay, explain what I grossly misunderstand. How is it not a prior restraint on the freedom of the press? I mean, if I publish something that's copy written, then I get civil fines and potentially go to jail. That's clearly a prior restraint.
It seems that what you don't understand is that copyright is the right to copy, not the write to copy or the right to write. So what you're not allowed to do is publish something that is copyrighted.
Slashdot Mirror
Same goes for spammers. Why should a spammer who causes more than a billion dollars in lost productivity NOT be called what he is? A terrorist.
Wait, now loss of productivity is terrorism? I think we are stretching that term just a wee bit.
BTW I agree, but was using it to get to a point: A free market solution (using real costs) can't work if you can't refuse to do business based on that price.
And that's one of the reasons why health care has no place in the Free Market.
Somehow I don't have sympathy when the richest company in the world complains that they're not making as much money as before.
An post that merely quotes the parent and adds an ad-hominem attack should not be marked insightful.
What's the matter? Don't AC's get mod points? Oh wait...
Wow, such an insightful statement contained in a mere simple declarative sentence that is nothing more than a mild ad hominem. It's not your fault, of course, that mods are stupid. Congratulations on your unearned moderation. Perhaps you could follow up your post with another that explains why AC's post is shockingly naive?
Sorry to hurt your feelings. It's quite simple, really. Management is often not very good at identifying the real performers and critical people in a department or team. They make decisions based on politics, who kisses the most ass and who is related to the boss's wife. Most people who have been around the block a few times have learned this. YMMV.
They already are trying it and finding less than 35% of people actually do it. This is up from 20% a few years ago, mainly due to massive advertising.
Assuming that 50% of people would benefit and the other 50% would lose, that means a solid 15% of the population is intentionally refusing to do it. Note, that number is probably higher, as most people think they are better drivers than they actually are. Let's say that 70% of the population THINKS they would benefit from it, which means that approximately 50% of their target market says "NO thanks, I like my privacy."
Well, that's encouraging at least. Maybe people will wake up and smell the surveillance.
EXACTLY! People here can say what they want about Trump, but I think he is going to be the only candidate to put a stop to this kind of thing happening.
Never heard of Bernie Sanders, eh?
It may be a tough road to hoe
Row to hoe
Disney could also have saved the money if they just didn't pay the workers at all, let the debt pile up and shot everyone trying to go to the courts to demand the money. Also this is deemed illegal for some reason.
But they're just trying to make a profit! Everyone knows anything is okay as long as you're trying to make a profit! Corporations are barely getting by as it is!
Company wants to save money by replacing overpaid workers with cheaper ones? Story at 11. Really, I fail to see what the issue is here. This is a corporation doing what corporations do - try to minimize expenditures. These people were likely at will employees as as such have no guarantee of job security. If you are making a lot of money, expect to be under the microscope when the cost cutters come around. If you are truly worth it, you have nothing to worry about. This is just crybaby bullshit.
For someone coming off as smug and superior, you are shockingly naive.
the fact that it's planned as opposed to accidentel is what makes it a conspiracy
Business plans are accidental?
It's late term Capitalism eating itself.
Bernie Sanders and Trump are, by contrast, very good on this issue.
Bernie Sanders is very good on most issues! It's refreshing to have a candidate who seems to actually give a fuck.
So, what, they want to be our nannies, and they think people will just let themselves be tracked to prop up their failing business model?
No, they think people will let themselves be tracked for BIG SAVINGS! and convenience. Based on what I have seen of people's behavior and ability to not think things through, I think it might work.
So much bullshit.
Oh yeah.
You've made your bed, time to enjoy your nap while the adults clean up the mess liberal Democrats made yet again.
I stand amazed at the projection coming from the Right. The Bush Administration spent 8 years nearly ruining this country; starting unnecessary wars, curtailing civil liberties, and implementing irresponsible tax cuts. By the end of his presidency even hardcore Republicans were running away from him and the whole country couldn't wait to elect a different president. Yet you still write sentences like that above and expect to be taken seriously.
Based on your comments, like most people, you believe that in order for citizens to have a right, it must be granted by the constitution. In fact, it is just the opposite. The constitution grants rights and responsibilities to the government and any responsibility not explicitly granted to the government remains the right of the people. Many of the founders specifically objected to the Bill of Rights for this reason because it made it seem like if the constitution wasn't giving a right to the people, then they didn't have that right. You don't only have the rights in the bill of rights. You have ALL rights unless a specific limitation is put in place in the constitution granting the government dominion over a particular activity. Do not fall into the trap of saying that if it isn't in the Bill of RIghts, it's not a right.
That's why the 9th Amendment is my favorite amendment.
When I first heard the term "Homeland" used to describe the United States, I knew in which direction we were heading.
I know what you're getting at, but it's probably not a good idea to throw the word fascism around at things that aren't, because you dilute the word to mean things that it doesn't, thus its harder to expose real fascists when they come around.
Well, then it's a good thing I didn't use that word! ;-) What I meant was "Homeland" is a propaganda word. It is meant to rally people around the country and promote feelings of patriotism and belonging. It was not used to refer to the US until after 9/11. And it is of a piece with the Bush Administration's exploitation of that event to enact their agenda. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the substance of that exploitation and agenda remain into the present.
I am a student of PR and propaganda, so when I heard the country being referred to as the Homeland it made my ears perk up. I immediately recognized it.
Or to present false choices.
It's always amazing how such nonsense enters these types of arguments.
That's what 80 years of propaganda will get you.
That America is beginning to forget the historical reasons why anonymous speech is a protected class of speech is scary. That America has pretty much decided all other freedoms are options is utterly terrifying.
Americans are not taught real history. They are taught the sanitized, approved version. Likewise they don't really think for themselves. They usually select their opinion from a menu presented by the mass media.
.... as we creep slowly-- no rapidly descend towards fascism. Why don't they rename DHS to DACL-- Department of Anti-CIvil Liberty?
What, Homeland security is not fascist enough for your taste ? The program is all in the name. It has the same sound as committe for state security. You know, the whole keep the fatherland safe mantra.
When I first heard the term "Homeland" used to describe the United States, I knew in which direction we were heading.
Of course, theoretically, 'competition' in 'markets' should stamp this out.
That theory also talks about "informed actors". That is, consumers being able to get all the information -- a world without trade secrets...
That theory also assumes that if they are informed, they will act rationally.
I'm starting to understand why a lot of market theory is rubbish.
It's called FALSE AND MISLEADING ADVERTISING YOU WITLESS FUCKING MORON.
Yeah, and what are you going to do about it? Nothing! Because if you take it to small claims court, it will just drain 8 hours out of your life and they probably won't show up and even if you got the judgment they'd just stiff you anyway; so what you are going to do is piss and moan like an impotent jerk, and then bend over and take it up the tailpipe!
Because it is not HIS money it is YOURS and he will take it all with the stroke of his pen,.
It's the Federal Reserve's money. We're just borrowing it.
Okay, explain what I grossly misunderstand. How is it not a prior restraint on the freedom of the press? I mean, if I publish something that's copy written, then I get civil fines and potentially go to jail. That's clearly a prior restraint.
It seems that what you don't understand is that copyright is the right to copy, not the write to copy or the right to write. So what you're not allowed to do is publish something that is copyrighted.