only if you are a moron and live beyond your means
thats a big problem, people think just cause they work hard they are entitled to a mc mansion, new car, loads of toys and the best of everything, it was never that way in the past
Actually, debt is baked in. Do you know that every US dollar is existence is owed back to the Federal Reserve? If there were no debt, there would be no money. So yes, some people can live debt free. But that's only possible if someone else is taking on the debt. Under our current monetary system debt will only increase. It is physically impossible for most people to live debt free.
Absolutely no way it's less than Seattle. I have twenty-two direct reports and eighty-something more guys under them. That's over a hundred guys, and not a one of them is married. In Japan, at least the guys would be married. Out of that group, I only had one not show-up for work last Saturday until midnight and on Sunday until 9pm when we were all working to finish a release. Only one of the guys had a commitment, and that was for a concert with several male friends. As far as I know in the five years I've been here, not a single one of my employees has had a date. I haven't heard that mentioned having one ever. Not once. Japan can't beat zero! Outside of work, no male friend is married or has been on a date in the fifteen years since I moved to the Seattle area. Again, Japan can't beat zero!
Interesting. I read an article recently about how there are no good men is Seattle. Basically, all the new tech workers who have moved there are douchebags and the women don't want to date them. It seems your guys may need to step up their game, ask women about themselves, listen to the answers and not just talk about work all the time.
How do they force you? If anyone is fired for refusing to work more than 40 hours then they can sue since this is breaking the laws of most states in the US.
Fired for what now? Many states are "at will" states, meaning the employee is there at the will of themselves and their employer. If either party decides they don't like the arrangement, they can terminate the employment. So you can be fired because they just don't want you working there anymore. They didn't say it was for working only 40 hours, or because you're gay, or really what it was for. So good luck gathering evidence that you were fired for working only 40 hours, or because you got pregnant or whatever. The evidence doesn't exist. Besides, where is your unemployed ass getting the money for a lawyer? Suing isn't free, you know. You have to pay lawyers, and maybe you'll get it repaid on the back end if you happen to win. But even then you usually need to foot the bill yourself until such time comes, if it does.
I don't see what you think is wrong with businesses choosing cheap labor and paying only for qualifications they actually need: you do the same thing in your daily life.
It's because there is a massive power imbalance between the employer and employee. Generally speaking, the employee needs a job more than the employer needs the employee. The employer probably has hundreds of applications for a given position, while the prospective employee is struggling to get interviews, let alone offers.
Price competition does not work in the same way as salary competition, because the actors are on different sides of the equation. If shop A is asking too much for a good or service, I can easily go to shop B to see if it is cheaper there because I am the purchaser. If shop A wants my business they need to either lower their prices or add value to their offering to justify the higher price. In the salary competition scenario, the employee is like the shop. He is selling his labor to the employer. So the employer is the one who can shop around, and the employee has to either lower his wages or add value to justify higher wages. The difference between the two scenarios is the power imbalance. There is not a huge power imbalance in the price competition scenario like there is in the salary competition scenario.
of course the point that marketing effect on consumer behavior is largely unconcious remains.. so that's the real handicap on this study
That was my thought exactly. The point of modern advertising is that it works on your subconscious. You don't realize it is influencing you; that's why it works.
You are assuming that everyone plays by the rules. That is the problem - al Qaida breaks the rules, it makes war in a manner that does not comply with the treaties. That is why they are unlawful combatants and lose the protection of the treaties. You have to abide by the treaties to have their protection. It is a basic enforcement mechanism built in to them.
What are the rules when you have authorized the use of force against enemy combatants? I know we have rules for war against the country we are at war with. But since we're not at war, having never declared it, what are the rules for an authorized use of force? Maybe we need a new Geneva Convention around the rules for using the military against individuals that live in countries that are not strong enough to retaliate.
Perhaps not, but punishable by death, for speech?? Even "illegal speech"?
Being an accessory to murder as often as Anwar al-Awlaki was would earn you enough 20 year sentences to fill a hundred lifetimes. The man got what he deserved. Yes, the legal precedent that the Whitehouse set is a bit unsettling, but you can't argue that al-Awlaki didn't get what he deserved.
Can you please point me to the court of law in which this has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? And, I must add, "a bit unsettling"? Extra judicial execution based on secret intelligence is a bit unsettling? I'd hate to see what you consider gross overreach and abuse of power.
Anwar al-Awlaki posted videos urging all Muslims to commit violence against American civilians. Regardless of his specific role within al Qaeda, he certainly declared himself an "enemy combatant".
So merely saying that Americans deserve death means that you yourself deserve death. Got it. At least you put enemy combatant in scare quotes where it belongs.
I don't think you realize how pervasive and ambiguous that word means, nor the consequences it entails when put to action. Economy goes hand in hand with "freedom". This nation has never stopped marching to the beat of manifest destiny, it's only recently in history we've replaced "angels" with "economic interests". Those interests are something all us are a part of everyday, and not just the "rule-breakers" that we vote into office.
In a world compacted by globalization, "freedom" becomes the booty awarded from those economic endeavors of manifest destiny. The luxury and comfort afforded become synonymous with that "freedom" As long as we're okay with the freedom to extend our hands to foreign lands, okay with the freedom to do business with foreign peoples, and okay with the economy that all rewards us with, "freedom" becomes very much a part of our shared daily life.
But it's obvious that's not without consequences, our economy, our freedom, and the whole of the industrialized world's, is fueled by exploitation. You don't get the kind of luxuries and comforts of today without exploiting a few others. And you don't get away with that without upsetting some. Freedom is not without a tax. You'd have to be a fool to think any one can prosper in this world, that we all make daily, without exploiting others.
So, yes there are people who do threaten our freedom. Because that freedom comes with a cost. A cost that others must pay if you want to stay free e.g. comfortable, safe, prosperous, etc.
You seem to be saying that freedom is being the biggest kid on the block. I guess that's true, to a degree. But the implication of your post is that when you roll around the world exploiting people they eventually get pissed about it. So we need this military to fight the people we're pissing off.
I think I just disagree with the premise. I don't think the only path to freedom is being big and tough enough to take other people's stuff (that's what we're really talking about when we say we exploit a people), though it may be the way to fabulous wealth and power over others. The world doesn't have to be that way. Capitalism isn't like thermodynamics. There are no iron laws of society, there are only our choices. We have chosen to conduct ourselves in this way. And we can choose to be different.
Really, the American public only puts up with it because they don't have to see it happening. I read a short story many years ago called The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. It made me think about what kind of person I want to be, and propriety of making others miserable so that I can have a comfortable lifestyle.
its not a small victory. its the APPEARANCE of one, which is worse, because it will wrongfully quiet down a lot of complainers. which is all its intended to do.
Welcome to the United States of America, where perception is everything and nothing is what it seems.
I'd give it an Overratted if had a point to spare.
The Vietnam war didn't end, congress stopped funding it. Putting money into a slush fund doesn't suddenly make it legal to spend it on the defunded activity, just ask the Iran-contra guys. As has already been said the obvious loophole is that it names particular agencies, why coat the obvious with conspiratorial nonsense?
Because these days it turns out more and more to not be nonsense. I think EmagGeek has a point that the language seems to leave open the possibility of the funding coming from other sources. In the days of secret interpretations of laws, I don't think that should be discounted.
But take most of the fun out of driving fast. No engine, no rpm, no manual transmission.
Its like being given a steak dinner in pre-chewed form. Its all there, but its still ruined.:)
When I bought my current sports car I shopped for the manual 6 speed transmission, not because I imagine I can shift better than the computer in the tiptronic version. but because just its so much more engaging and in turn more fun to drive the manual.
Electrics are rapidly reaching the point where they deliver all the performance of a real sports car, and beyond, but I've still got zero interest in one. (Although I'd be fine with one as a commuter car.)
Maybe I'm just being sentimental.:)
What's not to like (except charging times)?
Charging time actually another item that makes them fairly useless as a track day car. I can (and must) refill the tank in my car a couple times on a good track day (including a fill up and the end of the day to get me back home). A fill up takes all of 5 minutes.
I hear you! You will have to pry the manual shifter from my cold dead hands. I would never own an automatic. But from what I've heard about the Teslas, they are a blast to drive. I don't think I would mind not having gears at all, just unending torque. Responsiveness and control are why I like rowing the gears. I think a Tesla would give those to me. Supposedly, when it is in aggressive regeneration mode, it will slow down almost like gear reduction. I'd like to try it, at least. Now I just have to save up $85,000!;-)
Slashdot Mirror
only if you are a moron and live beyond your means
thats a big problem, people think just cause they work hard they are entitled to a mc mansion, new car, loads of toys and the best of everything, it was never that way in the past
Actually, debt is baked in. Do you know that every US dollar is existence is owed back to the Federal Reserve? If there were no debt, there would be no money. So yes, some people can live debt free. But that's only possible if someone else is taking on the debt. Under our current monetary system debt will only increase. It is physically impossible for most people to live debt free.
Yeah, I think I saw your banner ad on a news site the other day...
> least amount of sex in the developed world.
Absolutely no way it's less than Seattle. I have twenty-two direct reports and eighty-something more guys under them. That's over a hundred guys, and not a one of them is married. In Japan, at least the guys would be married. Out of that group, I only had one not show-up for work last Saturday until midnight and on Sunday until 9pm when we were all working to finish a release. Only one of the guys had a commitment, and that was for a concert with several male friends. As far as I know in the five years I've been here, not a single one of my employees has had a date. I haven't heard that mentioned having one ever. Not once. Japan can't beat zero! Outside of work, no male friend is married or has been on a date in the fifteen years since I moved to the Seattle area. Again, Japan can't beat zero!
Interesting. I read an article recently about how there are no good men is Seattle. Basically, all the new tech workers who have moved there are douchebags and the women don't want to date them. It seems your guys may need to step up their game, ask women about themselves, listen to the answers and not just talk about work all the time.
The unemployment rate is bullshit. You know that, right?
Of course we should. But the oligarchs who run this country don't want anyone getting that idea.
It may nor be socialist, but one of the biggest problems is Obamacare. It absolutely kills small businesses.
They're paying you too much, because you suck at this.
I forget to add, good luck getting your next job when you sued the pants off your last employer.
How do they force you? If anyone is fired for refusing to work more than 40 hours then they can sue since this is breaking the laws of most states in the US.
Fired for what now? Many states are "at will" states, meaning the employee is there at the will of themselves and their employer. If either party decides they don't like the arrangement, they can terminate the employment. So you can be fired because they just don't want you working there anymore. They didn't say it was for working only 40 hours, or because you're gay, or really what it was for. So good luck gathering evidence that you were fired for working only 40 hours, or because you got pregnant or whatever. The evidence doesn't exist. Besides, where is your unemployed ass getting the money for a lawyer? Suing isn't free, you know. You have to pay lawyers, and maybe you'll get it repaid on the back end if you happen to win. But even then you usually need to foot the bill yourself until such time comes, if it does.
That's how they force you.
I don't see what you think is wrong with businesses choosing cheap labor and paying only for qualifications they actually need: you do the same thing in your daily life.
It's because there is a massive power imbalance between the employer and employee. Generally speaking, the employee needs a job more than the employer needs the employee. The employer probably has hundreds of applications for a given position, while the prospective employee is struggling to get interviews, let alone offers.
Price competition does not work in the same way as salary competition, because the actors are on different sides of the equation. If shop A is asking too much for a good or service, I can easily go to shop B to see if it is cheaper there because I am the purchaser. If shop A wants my business they need to either lower their prices or add value to their offering to justify the higher price. In the salary competition scenario, the employee is like the shop. He is selling his labor to the employer. So the employer is the one who can shop around, and the employee has to either lower his wages or add value to justify higher wages. The difference between the two scenarios is the power imbalance. There is not a huge power imbalance in the price competition scenario like there is in the salary competition scenario.
Unions just protect those that are incompetent or barely capable.
Fuck unions. I haven't even had to negotiate a raise in 3 years because they are a afraid of me leaving. >10% *grins*
Am I to understand that your personal experience negates the value of collective bargaining in general?
Sometimes you start as a bottom!
of course the point that marketing effect on consumer behavior is largely unconcious remains.. so that's the real handicap on this study
That was my thought exactly. The point of modern advertising is that it works on your subconscious. You don't realize it is influencing you; that's why it works.
You are assuming that everyone plays by the rules. That is the problem - al Qaida breaks the rules, it makes war in a manner that does not comply with the treaties. That is why they are unlawful combatants and lose the protection of the treaties. You have to abide by the treaties to have their protection. It is a basic enforcement mechanism built in to them.
What are the rules when you have authorized the use of force against enemy combatants? I know we have rules for war against the country we are at war with. But since we're not at war, having never declared it, what are the rules for an authorized use of force? Maybe we need a new Geneva Convention around the rules for using the military against individuals that live in countries that are not strong enough to retaliate.
The DIA needs better astroturfing.
Perhaps not, but punishable by death, for speech?? Even "illegal speech"?
Being an accessory to murder as often as Anwar al-Awlaki was would earn you enough 20 year sentences to fill a hundred lifetimes. The man got what he deserved. Yes, the legal precedent that the Whitehouse set is a bit unsettling, but you can't argue that al-Awlaki didn't get what he deserved.
Can you please point me to the court of law in which this has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? And, I must add, "a bit unsettling"? Extra judicial execution based on secret intelligence is a bit unsettling? I'd hate to see what you consider gross overreach and abuse of power.
Anwar al-Awlaki posted videos urging all Muslims to commit violence against American civilians. Regardless of his specific role within al Qaeda, he certainly declared himself an "enemy combatant".
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/30/anwar-al-awlaki-video-blogs
So merely saying that Americans deserve death means that you yourself deserve death. Got it. At least you put enemy combatant in scare quotes where it belongs.
You have a real inside-looking-out viewpoint, eh?
BAM! There it is.
I don't think you realize how pervasive and ambiguous that word means, nor the consequences it entails when put to action. Economy goes hand in hand with "freedom". This nation has never stopped marching to the beat of manifest destiny, it's only recently in history we've replaced "angels" with "economic interests". Those interests are something all us are a part of everyday, and not just the "rule-breakers" that we vote into office.
In a world compacted by globalization, "freedom" becomes the booty awarded from those economic endeavors of manifest destiny. The luxury and comfort afforded become synonymous with that "freedom" As long as we're okay with the freedom to extend our hands to foreign lands, okay with the freedom to do business with foreign peoples, and okay with the economy that all rewards us with, "freedom" becomes very much a part of our shared daily life.
But it's obvious that's not without consequences, our economy, our freedom, and the whole of the industrialized world's, is fueled by exploitation. You don't get the kind of luxuries and comforts of today without exploiting a few others. And you don't get away with that without upsetting some. Freedom is not without a tax. You'd have to be a fool to think any one can prosper in this world, that we all make daily, without exploiting others.
So, yes there are people who do threaten our freedom. Because that freedom comes with a cost. A cost that others must pay if you want to stay free e.g. comfortable, safe, prosperous, etc.
You seem to be saying that freedom is being the biggest kid on the block. I guess that's true, to a degree. But the implication of your post is that when you roll around the world exploiting people they eventually get pissed about it. So we need this military to fight the people we're pissing off.
I think I just disagree with the premise. I don't think the only path to freedom is being big and tough enough to take other people's stuff (that's what we're really talking about when we say we exploit a people), though it may be the way to fabulous wealth and power over others. The world doesn't have to be that way. Capitalism isn't like thermodynamics. There are no iron laws of society, there are only our choices. We have chosen to conduct ourselves in this way. And we can choose to be different.
Really, the American public only puts up with it because they don't have to see it happening. I read a short story many years ago called The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. It made me think about what kind of person I want to be, and propriety of making others miserable so that I can have a comfortable lifestyle.
its not a small victory. its the APPEARANCE of one, which is worse, because it will wrongfully quiet down a lot of complainers. which is all its intended to do.
Welcome to the United States of America, where perception is everything and nothing is what it seems.
I'd give it an Overratted if had a point to spare. The Vietnam war didn't end, congress stopped funding it. Putting money into a slush fund doesn't suddenly make it legal to spend it on the defunded activity, just ask the Iran-contra guys. As has already been said the obvious loophole is that it names particular agencies, why coat the obvious with conspiratorial nonsense?
Because these days it turns out more and more to not be nonsense. I think EmagGeek has a point that the language seems to leave open the possibility of the funding coming from other sources. In the days of secret interpretations of laws, I don't think that should be discounted.
And electrics get you efficiency and torque.
But take most of the fun out of driving fast. No engine, no rpm, no manual transmission.
Its like being given a steak dinner in pre-chewed form. Its all there, but its still ruined. :)
When I bought my current sports car I shopped for the manual 6 speed transmission, not because I imagine I can shift better than the computer in the tiptronic version. but because just its so much more engaging and in turn more fun to drive the manual.
Electrics are rapidly reaching the point where they deliver all the performance of a real sports car, and beyond, but I've still got zero interest in one. (Although I'd be fine with one as a commuter car.)
Maybe I'm just being sentimental. :)
What's not to like (except charging times)?
Charging time actually another item that makes them fairly useless as a track day car. I can (and must) refill the tank in my car a couple times on a good track day (including a fill up and the end of the day to get me back home). A fill up takes all of 5 minutes.
I hear you! You will have to pry the manual shifter from my cold dead hands. I would never own an automatic. But from what I've heard about the Teslas, they are a blast to drive. I don't think I would mind not having gears at all, just unending torque. Responsiveness and control are why I like rowing the gears. I think a Tesla would give those to me. Supposedly, when it is in aggressive regeneration mode, it will slow down almost like gear reduction. I'd like to try it, at least. Now I just have to save up $85,000! ;-)
nonsense, profit being the primary goal is what has driven civilization and progress
Funny, I thought it was the steam engine.
The countries that embraced capitalism are far better off than the ones that haven't.
And the social democracies are even better off that the capitalist countries.
wow, you mean Bill Gates is wrong? How could that be, he is always right. Or is he?
He's not wrong. It's just really easy to tell people not to pursue only profit when you're one of the richest people in the world.