No, in America the company would actually pay its employees enough to afford homes, and they would buy land in the surrounding area (you've already stated that the factories are built in places where land is cheap), and next thing you know a nice, middle class community would spring up. More people would move in to run the various shops to support the community, and tens of thousands of people would get to enjoy a decent quality of life while making something of value.
TL;DR version: the American-owned company has locked out 500 union workers in Canada until they accept a 50% cut in wages (average $34/hr), benefits and pension. They've already gotten the 50% cut in an American plant, and are threatening to move all jobs there and close the Canadian plant if workers don't agree.
The American owners are Caterpillar, expected to post a 2011 profit of "near $6/share" or about $3.9 billion. If all of those 500 salaries are cut back 50%, they save a mere $17M.
The article even notes that most of that $60M is restricted stock, they don't fully vest for over 4 years, and they're contingent on the execs remaining at Apple. Most of these execs have been at Apple many years and therefore demonstrated loyalty and commitment to the company's success.
While it's still a tidy sum even if Apple were to fall to half its value by the time they cash it all in, it ensures the execs have a literal "vested" interest in the continued performance of the company and its stock price--a far better incentive than the annual injections of straight "performance bonus" cash that the under-performing, revolving-door execs at other big companies receive, or multi-million severance packages if they're fired. See HP's fired CEO, Leo Apotheker, who got $7.2 M as a cash "bonus" for getting fired, as well as $18M in stock--on top of the $1.2M salary, $4M signing bonus, and $4M relocation expenses when he got hired. Not bad for someone who nearly burned HP to the ground.
Ironically, Apple (under Jobs at least; we'll see if Cook continues it) is a company that truly plans further than a quarter ahead, despite their being "the enemy" in this article.
Even when they were in the dumps shortly after Jobs' return, when they released the iMac in 1998 that ditched all contemporary ports in favour of USB, they demonstrated clearly that they think more than a quarter ahead. Good grief, they're STILL selling desktops with PS/2 ports for keyboards and mice!
Apple's treatment of Foxconn (operating on thin margins, but still profitable AFAIK), and by proxy to the Chinese factory workers, is a different story. On the one hand, they're bastards for not paying Foxconn and its workers more. Apple *can* afford it, after all. On the other hand, does it make any sense to willingly pay more than your competitors for what is (unlike display panels, flash drives, and other manufactured components) essentially an unlimited resource?
The reason that became the thing to do was because after the first suicide or two, companies compensated the families of the workers.
The compensation far exceeded what the worker would get in take-home pay that didn't go towards necessities.
Workers on the brink concluded that they could contribute financially to their families far better by jumping to their deaths. And while suicide is not as historically big in Chinese culture as it is in Japanese, it can still be seen as honourable (helping family in death) rather than an end result of depression like it is in the west.
AFAIK companies have stopped compensating families of workers committing suicide (or at least greatly reduced the amount), to discourage this practice. Doesn't stop them all from happening, but it does remove a strong motivating factor.
Concur. Just look at Apple as example--although several of their actions look like they're bordering on monopoly abuse, history has shown they don't care that much about market share. They're after revenue/profit share, market share is a bonus along the way that may (or may not) help with that.
This is why they don't really care that Mac market share is only around 10% (globally), or that iPod nano cannibalized the hugely successful iPod mini market, or the iPhone cannibalized standalone iPod sales. History abound with companies that failed to invent and/or capitalize on the next big thing, deny or try to bury it, and are left in the dust. Kodak with digital photography; RIM with consumer-friendly touchscreen phones; and to a lesser extent Microsoft, which still pulls in record revenue and profit and are successful by Wall Street standards, but have "lost" the browser wars and with it control of consumer computing (they also lost the mp3 player war, and it'll be several years before we see if their phone strategy works).
I don't see how you (or the GP) could have blamed a hypothetical Apple bankruptcy on Jobs. He was pushed out in 1985, and Apple continued doing well until the early 1990s, half a decade later. It wasn't until the mid-90s that Apple was starting to look like a trainwreck in slow-motion.
Jobs was brought back with the NeXT acquisition, Apple was in dire straits then, but if it had failed it wouldn't have been a direct result of Jobs' actions (if he'd done the same things, but say hypothetically Apple didn't have the cash in the bank to tide itself over). That would be like blaming the incoming president for the mess the previous one left, a mere six months after the new one took office.
I tip my hat to you (and other following posts with a similar mindset), for giving advice logically, based on the user's needs and not your platform preference.
I'm a Mac user since the early 90s. I obviously prefer it and believe that on the whole OSX is better for general users. Whenever someone asks for buying advice, I am upfront with this, but based on their wants and needs (especially budget) I have no qualms saying a Mac might not be for them.
Thing is, the majority of annoying ads are always targeted at the low-hanging fruit: the kind of people that's just above believing the Nigerian prince scam.
They know they won't rope in the intelligent ones, so they don't care if they're annoying us (hell, it's probably deliberate--"you'll never buy from us anyway, so we'll bug the hell out of you").
I also haven't disabled/. ads even though I have the option to.
Suppose this would be a good time to remind all the friends and family that Google+ is still available and only half as evil...
... and 1/100th the activity.
I and a couple dozen friends flocked to G+ after being annoyed by one of FB's many bad moves last year, but only one bothers to post there anymore, and his are all cross-posted to FB anyway.
Lack of events (no, I *don't* want to open and link to Calendars!) and draconian measures for "terms of use" violations are just a few of its shortcomings.
As far as my "circles" are concerned, Google+ is a failure.
I just "unsubscribed" from a friend's posts when the volume and type of post got a bit much--and no, they weren't game/app updates, I blocked those already.
IIRC the FB newsfeed reloaded immediately and I no longer see her updates unless I go directly to her profile wall.
My only concern is whether the unsubscribe appeared in the activity feed. It did when someone else unsubscribed from something, but that was to a corporate or commercial entity, which may play by different rules.
Reminds me of the the time our managers and dev team, about 8 of us, finally, *finally* got funds and time to reward ourselves to a weekend retreat, at a famous rural hotel.
It was supposed to just be us, but the sales and marketing team found out about it a day or two before we left, and invited themselves along.
While we generally got along with the sales guys, IMHO was extremely rude of them to bust in on our team's retreat, when they routinely got to go on their own retreats.
You code against it and then if it doesn't work on some platform, it's its fault. You might even go through the extra trouble to make it work, but it isn't on you. You were following the standards.
Meanwhile, in a place I like to call The Real World, the users of Internet Explorer will scream at the school administrators for wasting taxpayer money on something that doesn't work on the "standard" web browser that still owns over 50% of the market.
As a web developer I disobeyed my boss in 2005 and made sure to develop and test against Firefox first, not IE, even though our web stats at the time said over 95% of our visitors were IE6. It was the right decision and has saved a lot of work to re-do things once better browsers starting eating IE's lunch, and I take great glee watching Internet Exploder slip further down in market share. But the sad reality is you still have to account for it as the second-class citizen it deserves to be.
Fair enough, and like I said my reply wasn't directed at you personally. I meant to inform other Canadian readers who weren't aware of the hypocritical BS from Conservatives and their supporters when this came up, where they conveniently ignored the fact a more odious subsidy already existed in our system (but greatly benefits their party).
If the US already has 100% out of pocket donation laws, that's one of many examples where your tax system is superior to ours (I don't agree with the $$ = free speech US court ruling though; but as you repsectfully noted opinions of non-citizens doesn't matter much).
Look at Canada - we had a per-vote subsidy for party members (everyone got $1.25 per vote). The present Harper Government (yes, the Government of Canada is officially known as the Harper Government) scapped it under the guise of "budget deficit". (Plus a few people were complaining that they had to support a "losing" party).
I don't know, I'd actually be kind of pissed too if I was being forced to subsidize... say... SOPA supporters just because people voted for them.
I was hoping someone would reply with this. The following is not directed at you personally.
The per-vote subsidy was an awesome idea. You weren't subsidizing a party you didn't vote for. You were subsidizing a party you *did* vote for. If you didn't vote, you saved a paltry $1.25 of taxpayer money, but wasted a right that millions of people are literally fighting and dying for.
You know what should actually piss you off? If I as a Canadian citizen donate the full allowable amount to a political party ($1100, increasing to $1200 this year), I get over $600 back as a tax credit.
That's fucking right, you and other taxpayers just subsidized $600 of my $1100 donation, to a party you probably don't support, so I'm actually only out-of-pocket $500.
I don't care which party you support, that's a fucking outrageous travesty compared to the $1.25-per-vote subsidy that existed for an all-to-brief time. If you're rich enough to waste money donating to political parties or organizations, put your goddamn money where your mouth is--there should be NO tax credit, it should ALL be out-of-pocket. It's not like you'll miss a measly $600!
"Total tax rate" is as difficult to say in Canada as it is in the US thanks to different tax brackets, levels of government, etc. My personal income tax rate last year came out to a surprisingly low 18% (calculated by taking actual tax, divide by job income) thanks to various deductions. This includes federal and provincial taxes. What was *your* income tax rate?
(Obviously that excludes property and point-of-sale taxes).
The supplemental health insurance through my work is about $25 a month ($300/year). Key benefits for me personally: dental and prescriptions covered 100%, i.e. no deductible.
I can't sort out the mess of conflicting numbers for how much the average American pays for health insurance--some write that even with employers covering part of it, it ranges from $300-$500 a month ($3600-$6000/year). So I'll again ask, how much do *you* personally pay for health insurance through your employer's plan, and any additional, personal plans?
Then consider that America in 2007 spent almost twice as much taxpayer money on health care, per capita, than Canada ($6096 vs $3173). Americans should be on the streets protesting what a bad return-on-investment they're getting with their health care system... sorry, health *insurance* system.
Yeah, Canada's health care system has issues. On the whole I'll take ours over the American system though.
You can change the default search engine on iOS easily.
Difficulty in changing the OS or other options like alternate browsers (engines, not using the WebKit back-end), can't install Flash, etc... while it can be frustrating for some users, is not monopoly abuse, or indications of such. Abuse on Apple's part would be if they contractually prevented app authors from re-publishing their apps on Android, Blackberry or WinPhone, which has not happened.
When prices spiked in 2008 it had a very obvious effect on what cars people wanted to buy.
I live in Canada, and bought a new Honda Fit that spring. A couple visiting from I think Utah stopped to chat about how they'd been looking at new cars, and a Fit was on their list. But all their local dealerships had waiting lists of over a month, they were negotiating $1000 or more above the sticker price, and used Fits were selling above even that (because they were immediately available). The entry-level Honda car was suddenly a target for car thieves. Meanwhile, SUVs were being left in the lot or traded in for more fuel-efficient vehicles.
If the global recession hadn't hit soon after and brought oil prices back down, we'd probably see far fewer SUVs on the road today.
Mod parent up. Not only this, their "tough on crime bill" and building mega prisons (privatized, no doubt) has been called a huge mistake. By who? None other than conservatives in Texas, based on the fact they've already tried it.
Harper's Conservatives has been in lockstep with the US conservatives in every way except this. They're pigheaded enough to think they can do better, and waste billions doing it (you think the gun registry was a boondoggle?).
Either that, or they've discovered that Texas Republicans are actually loony left European socialists in disguise.
Most roads are taxpayer subsidized too. I wonder when Americans will start accepting random stops and vehicle searches by TSA personnel on the highway during rush hour.
Problem is if they extend "take risks for themselves" to "take risks with their dependents," i.e. not buckling their kids in because of a fear stemming from a personal but statistically improbable experience.
Now I know emotion is severely overriding common sense, but these anecdotes are the equivalent of winning the jackpot in the lottery. If you continue playing the lottery afterward, statistically any future winnings will be small like everyone else. Translating this analogy, the next big accident they get in, they'll die because they *didn't* wear a seatbelt.
Key words: "at this school." Meaning probably a desktop in a computer lab or other common-access area. People will always disrespect what's not "theirs." This applies to so-called adults as well as kids. If they vandalized them during the class they'd move to another, working station; if they did it at the end of their class, too bad for the suckers in the next class.
The laptops, on the other hand, were "theirs" for the term. If they vandalized or broke them while at home, they couldn't use it or get a replacement until they went to school the next (week)day. There's probably a form to fill out, they'd be asked what they were doing when it stopped working, etc so even if it broke at school it would be a small personal hassle to get a replacement. Just easier to take care of them.
I don't get *why* they're using so much power on standby. For my PVR, a Cisco Explorer 8642HD, the difference between cold standby (hard drive spun down) and warm standby (every 5-10 minutes the hard drive is spun up for a minute or so; but what for?) is about 5W.
The difference between warm standby and it actually being on and sending a signal to the TV and receiver: 0W.
In other words, the difference in 5W is only used to power the hard drive. Every other circuit is fully active 24/7, even though in standby it's not processing any data, sending no signals, etc.
I get that it sometimes needs to process instructions from the cable company, like program listing or firmware updates, but otherwise why can't the rest of the system be powered down during standby like the rest of my equipment? IIRC everything else on standby (TV, PS3, Airport Express, AV receiver and speakers) consume less than 1W *combined*.
My PVR uses 25W on standby, 29-30 when it spins up the hard drive (in standby or on). It's the worst electricity "vampire" device I have, and I had planned to get a powerbar with a timer to switch stuff off during the night and during weekdays when I'm at work. So figure about 0.65 kW/h a day, or about 5c (10c with "delivery charge").
Then our province-mandated smart meter program finally kicked in and I could see which hours of the day I was using the most electricity. It corresponded to my daily hot shower, i.e. my hot water tank. Each shower costs 50c ($1 w/DC).
I figured the PVR makes up about 6% of each hydro bill. Still worth considering a timer for, at $20 a pop it could pay off in about 2 years (figure it's off overnight, on during weeknights and weekend days).
But my phone charger? Even at 0.5W, that's 5c (10c), or less than 0.1% of each bill. It's simply not worth thinking it.
Don't know about other phone chargers, but my iPhone USB charger block registers 0W on my watt meter when the cable is plugged in but no iPhone is attached.
Slashdot Mirror
No, in America the company would actually pay its employees enough to afford homes, and they would buy land in the surrounding area (you've already stated that the factories are built in places where land is cheap), and next thing you know a nice, middle class community would spring up. More people would move in to run the various shops to support the community, and tens of thousands of people would get to enjoy a decent quality of life while making something of value.
Oh really?
TL;DR version: the American-owned company has locked out 500 union workers in Canada until they accept a 50% cut in wages (average $34/hr), benefits and pension. They've already gotten the 50% cut in an American plant, and are threatening to move all jobs there and close the Canadian plant if workers don't agree.
The American owners are Caterpillar, expected to post a 2011 profit of "near $6/share" or about $3.9 billion. If all of those 500 salaries are cut back 50%, they save a mere $17M.
Which America are you talking about?
Don't forget the other place Apple places its profits: a massive bonuses for top executives.
The article even notes that most of that $60M is restricted stock, they don't fully vest for over 4 years, and they're contingent on the execs remaining at Apple. Most of these execs have been at Apple many years and therefore demonstrated loyalty and commitment to the company's success.
While it's still a tidy sum even if Apple were to fall to half its value by the time they cash it all in, it ensures the execs have a literal "vested" interest in the continued performance of the company and its stock price--a far better incentive than the annual injections of straight "performance bonus" cash that the under-performing, revolving-door execs at other big companies receive, or multi-million severance packages if they're fired. See HP's fired CEO, Leo Apotheker, who got $7.2 M as a cash "bonus" for getting fired, as well as $18M in stock--on top of the $1.2M salary, $4M signing bonus, and $4M relocation expenses when he got hired. Not bad for someone who nearly burned HP to the ground.
Ironically, Apple (under Jobs at least; we'll see if Cook continues it) is a company that truly plans further than a quarter ahead, despite their being "the enemy" in this article.
Even when they were in the dumps shortly after Jobs' return, when they released the iMac in 1998 that ditched all contemporary ports in favour of USB, they demonstrated clearly that they think more than a quarter ahead. Good grief, they're STILL selling desktops with PS/2 ports for keyboards and mice!
Apple's treatment of Foxconn (operating on thin margins, but still profitable AFAIK), and by proxy to the Chinese factory workers, is a different story. On the one hand, they're bastards for not paying Foxconn and its workers more. Apple *can* afford it, after all. On the other hand, does it make any sense to willingly pay more than your competitors for what is (unlike display panels, flash drives, and other manufactured components) essentially an unlimited resource?
The reason that became the thing to do was because after the first suicide or two, companies compensated the families of the workers.
The compensation far exceeded what the worker would get in take-home pay that didn't go towards necessities.
Workers on the brink concluded that they could contribute financially to their families far better by jumping to their deaths. And while suicide is not as historically big in Chinese culture as it is in Japanese, it can still be seen as honourable (helping family in death) rather than an end result of depression like it is in the west.
AFAIK companies have stopped compensating families of workers committing suicide (or at least greatly reduced the amount), to discourage this practice. Doesn't stop them all from happening, but it does remove a strong motivating factor.
Concur. Just look at Apple as example--although several of their actions look like they're bordering on monopoly abuse, history has shown they don't care that much about market share. They're after revenue/profit share, market share is a bonus along the way that may (or may not) help with that.
This is why they don't really care that Mac market share is only around 10% (globally), or that iPod nano cannibalized the hugely successful iPod mini market, or the iPhone cannibalized standalone iPod sales. History abound with companies that failed to invent and/or capitalize on the next big thing, deny or try to bury it, and are left in the dust. Kodak with digital photography; RIM with consumer-friendly touchscreen phones; and to a lesser extent Microsoft, which still pulls in record revenue and profit and are successful by Wall Street standards, but have "lost" the browser wars and with it control of consumer computing (they also lost the mp3 player war, and it'll be several years before we see if their phone strategy works).
I don't see how you (or the GP) could have blamed a hypothetical Apple bankruptcy on Jobs. He was pushed out in 1985, and Apple continued doing well until the early 1990s, half a decade later. It wasn't until the mid-90s that Apple was starting to look like a trainwreck in slow-motion.
Jobs was brought back with the NeXT acquisition, Apple was in dire straits then, but if it had failed it wouldn't have been a direct result of Jobs' actions (if he'd done the same things, but say hypothetically Apple didn't have the cash in the bank to tide itself over). That would be like blaming the incoming president for the mess the previous one left, a mere six months after the new one took office.
I tip my hat to you (and other following posts with a similar mindset), for giving advice logically, based on the user's needs and not your platform preference.
I'm a Mac user since the early 90s. I obviously prefer it and believe that on the whole OSX is better for general users. Whenever someone asks for buying advice, I am upfront with this, but based on their wants and needs (especially budget) I have no qualms saying a Mac might not be for them.
Thing is, the majority of annoying ads are always targeted at the low-hanging fruit: the kind of people that's just above believing the Nigerian prince scam.
They know they won't rope in the intelligent ones, so they don't care if they're annoying us (hell, it's probably deliberate--"you'll never buy from us anyway, so we'll bug the hell out of you").
I also haven't disabled /. ads even though I have the option to.
Suppose this would be a good time to remind all the friends and family that Google+ is still available and only half as evil...
... and 1/100th the activity.
I and a couple dozen friends flocked to G+ after being annoyed by one of FB's many bad moves last year, but only one bothers to post there anymore, and his are all cross-posted to FB anyway.
Lack of events (no, I *don't* want to open and link to Calendars!) and draconian measures for "terms of use" violations are just a few of its shortcomings.
As far as my "circles" are concerned, Google+ is a failure.
I just "unsubscribed" from a friend's posts when the volume and type of post got a bit much--and no, they weren't game/app updates, I blocked those already.
IIRC the FB newsfeed reloaded immediately and I no longer see her updates unless I go directly to her profile wall.
My only concern is whether the unsubscribe appeared in the activity feed. It did when someone else unsubscribed from something, but that was to a corporate or commercial entity, which may play by different rules.
Reminds me of the the time our managers and dev team, about 8 of us, finally, *finally* got funds and time to reward ourselves to a weekend retreat, at a famous rural hotel.
It was supposed to just be us, but the sales and marketing team found out about it a day or two before we left, and invited themselves along.
While we generally got along with the sales guys, IMHO was extremely rude of them to bust in on our team's retreat, when they routinely got to go on their own retreats.
It's called a STANDARD.
You code against it and then if it doesn't work on some platform, it's its fault. You might even go through the extra trouble to make it work, but it isn't on you. You were following the standards.
Meanwhile, in a place I like to call The Real World, the users of Internet Explorer will scream at the school administrators for wasting taxpayer money on something that doesn't work on the "standard" web browser that still owns over 50% of the market.
As a web developer I disobeyed my boss in 2005 and made sure to develop and test against Firefox first, not IE, even though our web stats at the time said over 95% of our visitors were IE6. It was the right decision and has saved a lot of work to re-do things once better browsers starting eating IE's lunch, and I take great glee watching Internet Exploder slip further down in market share. But the sad reality is you still have to account for it as the second-class citizen it deserves to be.
Fair enough, and like I said my reply wasn't directed at you personally. I meant to inform other Canadian readers who weren't aware of the hypocritical BS from Conservatives and their supporters when this came up, where they conveniently ignored the fact a more odious subsidy already existed in our system (but greatly benefits their party).
If the US already has 100% out of pocket donation laws, that's one of many examples where your tax system is superior to ours (I don't agree with the $$ = free speech US court ruling though; but as you repsectfully noted opinions of non-citizens doesn't matter much).
Look at Canada - we had a per-vote subsidy for party members (everyone got $1.25 per vote). The present Harper Government (yes, the Government of Canada is officially known as the Harper Government) scapped it under the guise of "budget deficit". (Plus a few people were complaining that they had to support a "losing" party).
I don't know, I'd actually be kind of pissed too if I was being forced to subsidize... say... SOPA supporters just because people voted for them.
I was hoping someone would reply with this. The following is not directed at you personally.
The per-vote subsidy was an awesome idea. You weren't subsidizing a party you didn't vote for. You were subsidizing a party you *did* vote for. If you didn't vote, you saved a paltry $1.25 of taxpayer money, but wasted a right that millions of people are literally fighting and dying for.
You know what should actually piss you off? If I as a Canadian citizen donate the full allowable amount to a political party ($1100, increasing to $1200 this year), I get over $600 back as a tax credit.
That's fucking right, you and other taxpayers just subsidized $600 of my $1100 donation, to a party you probably don't support, so I'm actually only out-of-pocket $500.
I don't care which party you support, that's a fucking outrageous travesty compared to the $1.25-per-vote subsidy that existed for an all-to-brief time. If you're rich enough to waste money donating to political parties or organizations, put your goddamn money where your mouth is--there should be NO tax credit, it should ALL be out-of-pocket. It's not like you'll miss a measly $600!
"Total tax rate" is as difficult to say in Canada as it is in the US thanks to different tax brackets, levels of government, etc. My personal income tax rate last year came out to a surprisingly low 18% (calculated by taking actual tax, divide by job income) thanks to various deductions. This includes federal and provincial taxes. What was *your* income tax rate?
(Obviously that excludes property and point-of-sale taxes).
The supplemental health insurance through my work is about $25 a month ($300/year). Key benefits for me personally: dental and prescriptions covered 100%, i.e. no deductible.
I can't sort out the mess of conflicting numbers for how much the average American pays for health insurance--some write that even with employers covering part of it, it ranges from $300-$500 a month ($3600-$6000/year). So I'll again ask, how much do *you* personally pay for health insurance through your employer's plan, and any additional, personal plans?
Then consider that America in 2007 spent almost twice as much taxpayer money on health care, per capita, than Canada ($6096 vs $3173). Americans should be on the streets protesting what a bad return-on-investment they're getting with their health care system... sorry, health *insurance* system.
Yeah, Canada's health care system has issues. On the whole I'll take ours over the American system though.
You can change the default search engine on iOS easily.
Difficulty in changing the OS or other options like alternate browsers (engines, not using the WebKit back-end), can't install Flash, etc... while it can be frustrating for some users, is not monopoly abuse, or indications of such. Abuse on Apple's part would be if they contractually prevented app authors from re-publishing their apps on Android, Blackberry or WinPhone, which has not happened.
When prices spiked in 2008 it had a very obvious effect on what cars people wanted to buy.
I live in Canada, and bought a new Honda Fit that spring. A couple visiting from I think Utah stopped to chat about how they'd been looking at new cars, and a Fit was on their list. But all their local dealerships had waiting lists of over a month, they were negotiating $1000 or more above the sticker price, and used Fits were selling above even that (because they were immediately available). The entry-level Honda car was suddenly a target for car thieves. Meanwhile, SUVs were being left in the lot or traded in for more fuel-efficient vehicles.
If the global recession hadn't hit soon after and brought oil prices back down, we'd probably see far fewer SUVs on the road today.
Mod parent up. Not only this, their "tough on crime bill" and building mega prisons (privatized, no doubt) has been called a huge mistake. By who? None other than conservatives in Texas, based on the fact they've already tried it.
Harper's Conservatives has been in lockstep with the US conservatives in every way except this. They're pigheaded enough to think they can do better, and waste billions doing it (you think the gun registry was a boondoggle?).
Either that, or they've discovered that Texas Republicans are actually loony left European socialists in disguise.
Most roads are taxpayer subsidized too. I wonder when Americans will start accepting random stops and vehicle searches by TSA personnel on the highway during rush hour.
Problem is if they extend "take risks for themselves" to "take risks with their dependents," i.e. not buckling their kids in because of a fear stemming from a personal but statistically improbable experience.
Now I know emotion is severely overriding common sense, but these anecdotes are the equivalent of winning the jackpot in the lottery. If you continue playing the lottery afterward, statistically any future winnings will be small like everyone else. Translating this analogy, the next big accident they get in, they'll die because they *didn't* wear a seatbelt.
Key words: "at this school." Meaning probably a desktop in a computer lab or other common-access area. People will always disrespect what's not "theirs." This applies to so-called adults as well as kids. If they vandalized them during the class they'd move to another, working station; if they did it at the end of their class, too bad for the suckers in the next class.
The laptops, on the other hand, were "theirs" for the term. If they vandalized or broke them while at home, they couldn't use it or get a replacement until they went to school the next (week)day. There's probably a form to fill out, they'd be asked what they were doing when it stopped working, etc so even if it broke at school it would be a small personal hassle to get a replacement. Just easier to take care of them.
I don't get *why* they're using so much power on standby. For my PVR, a Cisco Explorer 8642HD, the difference between cold standby (hard drive spun down) and warm standby (every 5-10 minutes the hard drive is spun up for a minute or so; but what for?) is about 5W.
The difference between warm standby and it actually being on and sending a signal to the TV and receiver: 0W.
In other words, the difference in 5W is only used to power the hard drive. Every other circuit is fully active 24/7, even though in standby it's not processing any data, sending no signals, etc.
I get that it sometimes needs to process instructions from the cable company, like program listing or firmware updates, but otherwise why can't the rest of the system be powered down during standby like the rest of my equipment? IIRC everything else on standby (TV, PS3, Airport Express, AV receiver and speakers) consume less than 1W *combined*.
My PVR uses 25W on standby, 29-30 when it spins up the hard drive (in standby or on). It's the worst electricity "vampire" device I have, and I had planned to get a powerbar with a timer to switch stuff off during the night and during weekdays when I'm at work. So figure about 0.65 kW/h a day, or about 5c (10c with "delivery charge").
Then our province-mandated smart meter program finally kicked in and I could see which hours of the day I was using the most electricity. It corresponded to my daily hot shower, i.e. my hot water tank. Each shower costs 50c ($1 w/DC).
I figured the PVR makes up about 6% of each hydro bill. Still worth considering a timer for, at $20 a pop it could pay off in about 2 years (figure it's off overnight, on during weeknights and weekend days).
But my phone charger? Even at 0.5W, that's 5c (10c), or less than 0.1% of each bill. It's simply not worth thinking it.
Don't know about other phone chargers, but my iPhone USB charger block registers 0W on my watt meter when the cable is plugged in but no iPhone is attached.
Would've helped if you'd named a few you think are better.