I was under the impression that Uber drivers drove 'when they wanted too' and they were independent contractors? Has that changed since the beginning of the company?
So what is the point of a union? What good does striking do to the business model of a company that assumes that on any given day everybody or nobody may decide to work?
The logical response of facebook should be to shutter all of it's german IP's with a sign that says, we are banned from doing business in Germany because we promote freedom of speech and leave it that way until things change.
That way the Germans can create their own censored Facebook knockoff and the German people suffer from isolation from the rest of the social network.
Part of the point of freedom of speech is free flow of information.
The american psychological establishment is a highly biased and liberal leaning institution and very little of what the recommend has anything to do with what engineers refer to as 'hard science'. If you take pschy courses, which are really interesting I'd recommend at least a couple. You will find. 1) that psychology considers itself a 'social science' not unlike say history, or anthropology. 2) they do not hold themselves to the same kind of evidence based standard as what they term a 'hard science'.
(I've confirmed both of the above statements with Professor's of psychology who teach licensed professionals.
I think the best way to accomplish what you are trying to do has 2 parts. 1) scheduled in house work groups where select leaders show off and teach skills to employees who might be able to use them in their job. the working group should focus on nuts and bolts type of stuff that can help people get the job done , more work in less time. 2) allocate a specific number of clock hours/ project time to training weekly to ensure people learn or practice the skills taught in the working group.
no the main problem with Clinton is that she believed in supreme court justices who like to engage in 'creative interpretation' of the law and who would rather 'read a modern meaning' into the laws and constitution rather then actually interpret them to mean what they were intended to mean by the people who wrote them or would have been reasonably understood to mean at the time of the writing.
So, instead of allowing and expecting the actual legislative process to change laws that need changing , they simply 'read what society means today' becoming petty dictators who usurp the authority of the legislative branch.
Other problems I had with her include her normalization of religious persecution for people who espouse ideas about morality she didn't like. Especially since I'd be on the receiving end of such.
Basically I knew what Clinton would deliver and didn't want any of the package being sold. I figured trump would be a terrible president but if he might feel like 'keeping face' by actually doing many of the things he had promised to do. Including securing our boarders, ( I'm very pro LEGAL immigration , but illegal immigration creates a sub class of persons who cannot seek help from the police when a crime is committed against then). Clinton never even suggested trying to solve the problem.
The worse characteristics of trump is anti-environmental, conspiracy theory bent.
However, I'd rather the country be destroyed then allowed legalized abortion and gay marriage to continue unchecked.
Basically I'm a pro-technology, pro-small business, pro-states right, pro-immigration, pro-life, pro-environment so either way I have to pick which candidate will deliver the things I consider most important , but in general democrats are anti-small business, anti-state rights, and anti-life, so unless I figure there is good chance of someone starting a nuclear war the republican would get my voice.
I used to be a pro-life democrat until all such people who were sincerely so were basically driven from the party.
what other categories should they genetically test for? Is there a test for likely depression? Is there a test for 'needs strong stimulus motivation'? aka lazy. how about a test for 'likely to deviate from sexual norm'?
What other physical characteristics should we allow to be used to make people unemployable? Skin and Hair color used to be favorites, other then being somewhat arbitrary what is wrong with that?
I don't see it yet, but doesn't this remind you of a 'business leader' an CEO who recently was elected? I wonder how many other presidents of the United states might fit that category. Theodore Roosevelt might be a candidate. I'm not trolling however, I actually voted for the man. I suspected at the time and still suspect both he is a sociopath or psychopath of some kind. I considered him a horrible option for president. Simply the other choice was worse.
Hey , whatever happened to 'embracing diversity'? Aren't these folks born this way;) Ok I might be trolling a bit now, but I hope most people get a good laugh from it;0:)
How much would it cost? IF it cost about the same OR less AND the enviornmental impact was less THEN I might consider it. Especially if I could grow it myself.
not sure if i agree that tolerance can be justified to use hate speech? Yes it can because there is no such thing as 'hate speech' unless you can give me some kind of well thought out definition for it that doesn't preventing people from saying what they believe is true ?
I've never seen one, they all basically amount to , I want to sensor opinions I don't believe are correct.
wow, i didn't know there were still any other moderates out there. I don't think I've even heard the term in the media in the last 10 years.
Although i think the situation is worse then you might imagine. I really believe that about 25% of the people on both the left and the right have been programmed to respond when 'triggered' to whatever activities their common social group might want censored. So that is about 40% of the country total.
However, that is a natural consequence of the indoctrination within our school systems and the basic logical conclusion of liberal thought approach. Basically the history goes like this. 'A person should be free to interpret the bible for themselves' - Martin Luther ( by scripture alone). So logically 'Freedom is the ability to decide for your self what is right and wrong and do which ever you choose' - classic European liberalism. So logically 'All truths( all rights and wrongs) are equal' - ( utilitarianism, materialism, moral relativism). So logically 'There is no such thing as truth and truth is irrelevant or at least unknowable, thus we have only what we feel to be true' - radical secularism/ atheism.
So, by banning 'religion' from our education system we basically have forced radical secularism by teaching that all 'truths' should be treated equally , which is the same as saying there is no truth , or at least none worth making important.
Diversity is good, but there can be not such thing as diversity of truth. Otherwise you get, Hillary and Trump.
of coarse that is most likely but like the aritcle I though murder was a more titillating possibility. It is still a whole lot more likely then a machine 'mysteriously' moving and 'killing' a 'co-worker'. Honestly this is about as mysterious as someone being hit by a truck because they were working underneath it and the jack fell, but murder is at least a possibility and that what it would be on every TV show I've ever seen;)
If I say 'what you are doing is wrong'? Do i hate you? Am I encouraging violence against you? What if I say only evil people do that?
If I say 'who you are voting for is evil' or worse 'people who vote for XXX are evil' Am I spewing hate?
Where do you draw the line.
In my experience ALL attempts at defining hate speech are attacks on free speech. Whoever defined what is 'hate' now has the power to define what is speech.
The only place to draw the line is when someone is standing there say 'we need to get our and do XYX to ABC'. But that isn't 'hate speech' now you are inciting to riot, which is already a crime.
I'm pretty sure all acts of espionage are classed as treason. So, anyone providing classified information to,well anyone , outside of those who have a need to know is considered guilty of treason.
Maybe there are 'more interesting' things going on, but in the last week have asked more then a few of my non - tech industry friends if they have heard about the new wiki leaks drop and non of them have. Frankly it just isn't being reported. That is one of the problems with our modern media, they serve as a filter for what is important but are driven by political ideology even more so then what sells and certainly have no real way of determine or interest in what is and isn't important to people. Many people are appalled when they hear about this drop, but it has been dreadfully under reported because the trump administration is much more salacious.
It was 'bought' from the native American for a pile of beads. The fact that the actual value was of the exchange was inequitable and one of the parties in the contract didn't even understand what property ownership meant, is of course irrelevant? Isn't it? The fact the native Americans believed you could no more own the land then the sky really has no bearing on weather or not they contractually obligated themselves or the other party was being honest about the value of the exchange?
A very similar situation here, the customer basically doesn't understand what they are giving away or what it's value is, so to them they are seemingly 'getting something for free'.
The chances that this had anything to do with trump are about the same as the connection between this article and "news for nerds, stuff that matters". and just to dissuade the bias read, I ( reluctantly ) voted for the man.
The same was true or Obama and clinton, that is run of the mill 'my team is better then your team' polorization. Neither one of them were without signifcant faults in my book. At the end of the day you have to look at: a) what a politician says they will do. b) how much you believe they will actually do it.
For me : I believe Clinton and Obama would do exactly what they said they would do. What they said they would do was increase socialism, centralize government power, use government power to increase and dictate secularization in a way the forced all people to public expose secular values and censor and punish anyone who refused. Ensure and increase the legalized murder of pre-born children and the sick and ding for years to come. Use centralized government authority to redistribute wealth and and reduce poverty including access to health care.
I wasn't sure trump would do half of what he claimed he would do, I'm still pretty certain he is a con man who uses distraction tactics and strong arming to get what he wants. Of coarse Pres. Obama was the master of strong arm tacticts and media spin but that is a different discussion.
Trump promised to: increase freedom, Decentralize government power increase a sense of community and american pride. put an end to the current genocide called abortion fix infrastructure find a better way for people to get health care and enforce our current immigration laws.
( he also, seems to thrive on conflict , is an ego manic and morally just not someone I'd like to represent the country none of that hand anything to do with what he said he would do).
When i viewed the 2 products I found one that I was certain didn't have any of the feature set I wanted. The other might have some of the features I wanted but certainly had a lot of unknowns and a serious downside. My choice would have been number 3 but there wasn't really a 3rd choice and so I had to pick between evil and gross and I figured at gross was better.
An interesting question. I've never had anyone questing the 'common knowledge' before and it occurred to me that while I've heard this I never bother to google it. Although If i had cared before I probably would have and I would suggest you do when you have such questions.
Slashdot Mirror
I was under the impression that Uber drivers drove 'when they wanted too' and they were independent contractors?
Has that changed since the beginning of the company?
So what is the point of a union?
What good does striking do to the business model of a company that assumes that on any given day everybody or nobody may decide to work?
More to the point our government is founded on christian principles.
Do you believe you have rights?
http://www.cathlogica.com/2017...
The logical response of facebook should be to shutter all of it's german IP's with a sign that says, we are banned from doing business in Germany because we promote freedom of speech and leave it that way until things change.
That way the Germans can create their own censored Facebook knockoff and the German people suffer from isolation from the rest of the social network.
Part of the point of freedom of speech is free flow of information.
how about anyone who referes to white people with the derogatory
'the man' or 'the oppressor'.
The american psychological establishment is a highly biased and liberal leaning institution and very little of what the recommend has anything to do with what engineers refer to as 'hard science'. If you take pschy courses, which are really interesting I'd recommend at least a couple. You will find.
1) that psychology considers itself a 'social science' not unlike say history, or anthropology.
2) they do not hold themselves to the same kind of evidence based standard as what they term a 'hard science'.
(I've confirmed both of the above statements with Professor's of psychology who teach licensed professionals.
I think the best way to accomplish what you are trying to do has 2 parts.
1) scheduled in house work groups where select leaders show off and teach skills to employees who might be able to use them in their job.
the working group should focus on nuts and bolts type of stuff that can help people get the job done , more work in less time.
2) allocate a specific number of clock hours/ project time to training weekly to ensure people learn or practice the skills taught in the working group.
no the main problem with Clinton is that she believed in supreme court justices who like to engage in 'creative interpretation' of the law and who would rather 'read a modern meaning' into the laws and constitution rather then actually interpret them to mean what they were intended to mean by the people who wrote them or would have been reasonably understood to mean at the time of the writing.
So, instead of allowing and expecting the actual legislative process to change laws that need changing , they simply 'read what society means today' becoming petty dictators who usurp the authority of the legislative branch.
Other problems I had with her include her normalization of religious persecution for people who espouse ideas about morality she didn't like.
Especially since I'd be on the receiving end of such.
Basically I knew what Clinton would deliver and didn't want any of the package being sold.
I figured trump would be a terrible president but if he might feel like 'keeping face' by actually doing many of the things he had promised to do.
Including securing our boarders, ( I'm very pro LEGAL immigration , but illegal immigration creates a sub class of persons who cannot seek help from the police when a crime is committed against then).
Clinton never even suggested trying to solve the problem.
The worse characteristics of trump is anti-environmental, conspiracy theory bent.
However, I'd rather the country be destroyed then allowed legalized abortion and gay marriage to continue unchecked.
Basically I'm a pro-technology, pro-small business, pro-states right, pro-immigration, pro-life, pro-environment so either way I have to pick which candidate will deliver the things I consider most important , but in general democrats are anti-small business, anti-state rights, and anti-life, so unless I figure there is good chance of someone starting a nuclear war the republican would get my voice.
I used to be a pro-life democrat until all such people who were sincerely so were basically driven from the party.
what other categories should they genetically test for?
Is there a test for likely depression?
Is there a test for 'needs strong stimulus motivation'? aka lazy.
how about a test for 'likely to deviate from sexual norm'?
What other physical characteristics should we allow to be used to make people unemployable? Skin and Hair color used to be favorites, other then being somewhat arbitrary what is wrong with that?
I don't see it yet, but doesn't this remind you of a 'business leader' an CEO who recently was elected?
I wonder how many other presidents of the United states might fit that category. Theodore Roosevelt might be a candidate.
I'm not trolling however, I actually voted for the man. I suspected at the time and still suspect both he is a sociopath or psychopath of some kind.
I considered him a horrible option for president. Simply the other choice was worse.
Hey , whatever happened to 'embracing diversity'? Aren't these folks born this way ;) ;0 :)
Ok I might be trolling a bit now, but I hope most people get a good laugh from it
Do Low performance employees also find the office distracting?
Do they blame it?
How much would it cost?
IF it cost about the same OR less AND the enviornmental impact was less THEN
I might consider it. Especially if I could grow it myself.
What a hateful thing to say ;)
Real heat is in the hearts of mankind.
It will never be overcome unless there is a God to overcome because it is beyond the power of mankind.
not sure if i agree that tolerance can be justified to use hate speech?
Yes it can because there is no such thing as 'hate speech' unless you can give me some kind of well thought out definition for it that doesn't preventing people from saying what they believe is true ?
I've never seen one, they all basically amount to , I want to sensor opinions I don't believe are correct.
wow, i didn't know there were still any other moderates out there.
I don't think I've even heard the term in the media in the last 10 years.
Although i think the situation is worse then you might imagine.
I really believe that about 25% of the people on both the left and the right have been programmed to respond when 'triggered' to whatever activities their common social group might want censored. So that is about 40% of the country total.
However, that is a natural consequence of the indoctrination within our school systems and the basic logical conclusion of liberal thought approach. Basically the history goes like this.
'A person should be free to interpret the bible for themselves' - Martin Luther ( by scripture alone).
So logically
'Freedom is the ability to decide for your self what is right and wrong and do which ever you choose' - classic European liberalism.
So logically
'All truths( all rights and wrongs) are equal' - ( utilitarianism, materialism, moral relativism).
So logically
'There is no such thing as truth and truth is irrelevant or at least unknowable, thus we have only what we feel to be true' - radical secularism/ atheism.
So, by banning 'religion' from our education system we basically have forced radical secularism by teaching that all 'truths' should be treated equally , which is the same as saying there is no truth , or at least none worth making important.
Diversity is good, but there can be not such thing as diversity of truth. Otherwise you get, Hillary and Trump.
of coarse that is most likely but like the aritcle I though murder was a more titillating possibility. It is still a whole lot more likely then a machine 'mysteriously' moving and 'killing' a 'co-worker'. Honestly this is about as mysterious as someone being hit by a truck because they were working underneath it and the jack fell, but murder is at least a possibility and that what it would be on every TV show I've ever seen ;)
If I say 'what you are doing is wrong'? Do i hate you?
Am I encouraging violence against you? What if I say only evil people do that?
If I say 'who you are voting for is evil' or worse 'people who vote for XXX are evil' Am I spewing hate?
Where do you draw the line.
In my experience ALL attempts at defining hate speech are attacks on free speech. Whoever defined what is 'hate' now has the power to define what is speech.
The only place to draw the line is when someone is standing there say 'we need to get our and do XYX to ABC'.
But that isn't 'hate speech' now you are inciting to riot, which is already a crime.
Just saying, what a perfect way to stage someones death. How could anyone know?
I'm pretty sure all acts of espionage are classed as treason. So, anyone providing classified information to ,well anyone , outside of those who have a need to know is considered guilty of treason.
https://www.google.com/search?...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Looks like it is around 90% of people who know about government spying , 50% of are angry about it and 50% of it think it is a good thing.
http://www.pewinternet.org/201...
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
http://www.pewinternet.org/201...
Maybe there are 'more interesting' things going on, but in the last week have asked more then a few of my non - tech industry friends if they have heard about the new wiki leaks drop and non of them have. Frankly it just isn't being reported. That is one of the problems with our modern media, they serve as a filter for what is important but are driven by political ideology even more so then what sells and certainly have no real way of determine or interest in what is and isn't important to people. Many people are appalled when they hear about this drop, but it has been dreadfully under reported because the trump administration is much more salacious.
It was 'bought' from the native American for a pile of beads. The fact that the actual value was of the exchange was inequitable and one of the parties in the contract didn't even understand what property ownership meant, is of course irrelevant? Isn't it?
The fact the native Americans believed you could no more own the land then the sky really has no bearing on weather or not they contractually obligated themselves or the other party was being honest about the value of the exchange?
A very similar situation here, the customer basically doesn't understand what they are giving away or what it's value is, so to them they are seemingly 'getting something for free'.
The chances that this had anything to do with trump are about the same as the connection between this article and "news for nerds, stuff that matters".
and just to dissuade the bias read, I ( reluctantly ) voted for the man.
The same was true or Obama and clinton, that is run of the mill 'my team is better then your team' polorization.
Neither one of them were without signifcant faults in my book.
At the end of the day you have to look at:
a) what a politician says they will do.
b) how much you believe they will actually do it.
For me : I believe Clinton and Obama would do exactly what they said they would do.
What they said they would do was
increase socialism,
centralize government power,
use government power to increase and dictate secularization in a way the forced all people to public expose secular values and censor and punish anyone who refused.
Ensure and increase the legalized murder of pre-born children and the sick and ding for years to come.
Use centralized government authority to redistribute wealth and and reduce poverty including access to health care.
I wasn't sure trump would do half of what he claimed he would do, I'm still pretty certain he is a con man who uses distraction tactics and strong arming to get what he wants. Of coarse Pres. Obama was the master of strong arm tacticts and media spin but that is a different discussion.
Trump promised to: increase freedom,
Decentralize government power
increase a sense of community and american pride.
put an end to the current genocide called abortion
fix infrastructure
find a better way for people to get health care
and enforce our current immigration laws.
( he also, seems to thrive on conflict , is an ego manic and morally just not someone I'd like to represent the country
none of that hand anything to do with what he said he would do).
When i viewed the 2 products I found one that I was certain didn't have any of the feature set I wanted.
The other might have some of the features I wanted but certainly had a lot of unknowns and a serious downside.
My choice would have been number 3 but there wasn't really a 3rd choice and so I had to pick between evil and gross and I figured at gross was better.
An interesting question. I've never had anyone questing the 'common knowledge' before and it occurred to me that while I've heard this I never bother to google it.
Although If i had cared before I probably would have and I would suggest you do when you have such questions.
https://www.americanexpress.co...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.thebalance.com/pol...
I didn't cherry pick these these were just on the top of the relevant results in google. Before you react it is good to research.