My Ipads are about 5 years old now, my Iphone slightly older. I got them when I had a work contract that made decent money, and since then I've had crap for pay. I'm basically one step away from being out in the street. So...I'm rich?
Nobody goes to movies to have identity politics shoved down their throats, and this is the result of a policy of shoving identity politics into the faces of a populace that is already over saturated.
Climate change is real, but how much influence humans have on it is up for debate.
That doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense to develop better, cleaner energy, or clean the oceans of plastic, or preserve endangered species, or reduce our waste products...
And as a certain study has proven, just because you don't believe that mankind has a huge influence on climate doesn't mean you don't want to do things to be a better steward of the planet.
You're forgetting just how this will work. So, you're right, power rates will go up...but that's not the only thing.
Fuel costs will also go up. This results in every single good and service going up in price from transport costs alone. Stores that already have raised prices on all goods because their power rates have gone up now also increase their prices even more because shipping costs have increased. And that's not counting goods crossing the ocean via cargo ship.
The price of manufacturing goods goes up, because of power rates and the cost of getting raw materials. Store prices will go up even more because the goods they buy to sell to use are being sold to them at an higher price than before.
It's more than just one thing...carbon taxation will lead to people who can't absorb the extra cost starving, and everyone else being knocked down a rung on the economic ladder...except for the politicians, big business, and the extremely wealthy.
First of all, who the hell cares what's between the legs of the person directing a film? That should have absolutely no bearing...it should be 'can this person do the job and do it well?' Forcing people into roles they may not be suited for, male or female, isn't going to produce quality work.
Secondly, what Mr. Cameron is forgetting is that media advanced extremely rapidly in North America, a predominantly white part of the world. This is one of the reason why American culture is currently so dominant...it was there first, and it did it the most, and at one point was actually the best hands-down in terms of quality. It's only been relatively recently that other nations have been really getting into the meat of the entertainment industry, and with time they will produce more and more material for themselves. As white people become minorities in the countries they created (which is going to happen, for good or for ill), you will white actors less and less...it's just a matter of math.
Third, girls on average aren't as interested in Sci Fi as boys are, (which is why finding a woman who can appreciate Star Trek, Star Wars, or just Sci Fi in general is awesome) which is why you see so many men in those roles. And hell, Sci Fi wasn't part of normal culture since its inception...most girls didn't give male geeks and nerds a second glance, going after the athletes and rock bands and more 'normal' boys, so that -also- reflects why sci fi is how it is...it had to appeal to its market, which was in general and by majority, and still is, geeky and nerdy males.
Changes in the industry will happen naturally and will reflect society...getting militant and forcing this kind of change will only create hostility and bickering, and further separation.
TL;DR Shut up and enjoy the stories, let whatever will be will be and don't force change that will happen naturally anyway.
One group talks about how this condemns Trump, because it shows Russian interference on his behalf (note it's interference, not collusion anymore). The other side says it exonerates Trump because the report specifically says that no American willingly participated. What people seem to be failing to notice is that the Russians were doing Pro and Anti-Trump, as well as Pro and Anti-Hillary...and then immediately after the election, kept stirring the pot with anti-Trump. You are being played to create dissent, to create chaos, and you're gleefully letting it happen. You have a media establishment that hates Trump, you have Democratic politicians who are willing to let the country go up in flames because they aren't getting what they want, and instead of saying 'Gee, maybe we'd better notice that Russia is screwing us all up' they're saying 'No sacrifice is too great to bring down Trump'.
Record breaking snowfall and cold, really?
I think if they were to dig further back they'd find snowfalls and temperatures far worse than what they're claiming are 'record breaking'. They might very well be...records for a short time ago.
As long as -all- hate crimes are put up, with none being dis-included because some believe it's impossible to commit a hate crime against them, then I'm for this.
Oh my, you mean the SJW initiatives Google has been fostering are now starting to backfire on them?
The problem with this sort of data is that it will -only- look at the numbers. It won't factor in things like attendance, work reviews, overtime worked, wage negotiations...it's never a case of 'the numbers will show what the numbers will show' in the case of this sort of data request. In order to gain an exact idea of WHY those numbers exist, you have to look into those other factors as well. You can't just say 'but but but SEXISM.'
I see no problem here. If the powers that be would restrict this sort of thing to stopping CP, then I'm all for it. Well done to the FBI, either way, on this case.
See, what I would like to know is how much the women were hired on for vs what the men were hired on for...you know, initial salaries.
If they started equal, but over time the men got raises because of time worked or particularly great contributions to the company, then there's no problem. However, if women were initially hired on for less than the men, or it could be proven that they worked an equal number of hours or made equal fantastic contributions, then there's a problem.
The biggest tell would be, honestly, the initial salary for equally qualified candidates of both genders.
Raw salary numbers without context won't tell you a thing, especially if there are more men working for Google then women.
Don't like it? Don't use it. That simple.
I'm willing to bet that the 'backlash' is he extremely loud 3% of the population that has perfected seeming like a much larger group than they actually are.
First, I still find it amusing that people essentially equate communism and socialism. While there are similarities there are more than a few key differences...but I digress from the topic at hand.
First and foremost, there is no need whatsoever for CEO's to make the money they do. It's ridiculous, especially considering that they make bonuses on top of their already exorbitant salaries...sometimes even when a company is failing, as we've seen in recent years.
Secondly, as much as I like the intent of the law in question, it won't work...as many others have pointed out, the CEO's will find ways around it. In order to make something like this work, every single country in the world would need to be onboard, and it would require a complete revamp of laws regarding economic policy. Laws are never black and white, those that write them either leave the in shades of grey (loopholes), or lawyers find ways of adding loopholes.
The unfortunate part of all of this is that we could have probably stopped this excessive executive acquisition of wealth decades ago, but unfortunately we didn't have information and communication technology like we do today (see: Internet). Now, barring armed revolution, it may be too late because big business is imbedded into the law books and governments like a disease-bearing tick. They've had a lot of time to gain influence and shape legislation right under our noses.
Ahhh well.
So, to answer the question posed more directly: yes , on the condition it could be made to work...otherwise, pointless.
Slashdot Mirror
My Ipads are about 5 years old now, my Iphone slightly older. I got them when I had a work contract that made decent money, and since then I've had crap for pay. I'm basically one step away from being out in the street. So...I'm rich?
Keep punching down to make yourself feel better.
Nobody goes to movies to have identity politics shoved down their throats, and this is the result of a policy of shoving identity politics into the faces of a populace that is already over saturated.
We invented phones to get away from writing letters and sending telegrams. Now, we're writing letters and sending telegrams again.
Climate change is real, but how much influence humans have on it is up for debate.
That doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense to develop better, cleaner energy, or clean the oceans of plastic, or preserve endangered species, or reduce our waste products...
And as a certain study has proven, just because you don't believe that mankind has a huge influence on climate doesn't mean you don't want to do things to be a better steward of the planet.
You're forgetting just how this will work. So, you're right, power rates will go up...but that's not the only thing.
Fuel costs will also go up. This results in every single good and service going up in price from transport costs alone. Stores that already have raised prices on all goods because their power rates have gone up now also increase their prices even more because shipping costs have increased. And that's not counting goods crossing the ocean via cargo ship.
The price of manufacturing goods goes up, because of power rates and the cost of getting raw materials. Store prices will go up even more because the goods they buy to sell to use are being sold to them at an higher price than before.
It's more than just one thing...carbon taxation will lead to people who can't absorb the extra cost starving, and everyone else being knocked down a rung on the economic ladder...except for the politicians, big business, and the extremely wealthy.
Carbon taxation will be passed onto consumers, period. Poor people, whom are already struggling, will find it even harder to survive.
First of all, who the hell cares what's between the legs of the person directing a film? That should have absolutely no bearing...it should be 'can this person do the job and do it well?' Forcing people into roles they may not be suited for, male or female, isn't going to produce quality work.
Secondly, what Mr. Cameron is forgetting is that media advanced extremely rapidly in North America, a predominantly white part of the world. This is one of the reason why American culture is currently so dominant...it was there first, and it did it the most, and at one point was actually the best hands-down in terms of quality. It's only been relatively recently that other nations have been really getting into the meat of the entertainment industry, and with time they will produce more and more material for themselves. As white people become minorities in the countries they created (which is going to happen, for good or for ill), you will white actors less and less...it's just a matter of math.
Third, girls on average aren't as interested in Sci Fi as boys are, (which is why finding a woman who can appreciate Star Trek, Star Wars, or just Sci Fi in general is awesome) which is why you see so many men in those roles. And hell, Sci Fi wasn't part of normal culture since its inception...most girls didn't give male geeks and nerds a second glance, going after the athletes and rock bands and more 'normal' boys, so that -also- reflects why sci fi is how it is...it had to appeal to its market, which was in general and by majority, and still is, geeky and nerdy males.
Changes in the industry will happen naturally and will reflect society...getting militant and forcing this kind of change will only create hostility and bickering, and further separation.
TL;DR Shut up and enjoy the stories, let whatever will be will be and don't force change that will happen naturally anyway.
One group talks about how this condemns Trump, because it shows Russian interference on his behalf (note it's interference, not collusion anymore). The other side says it exonerates Trump because the report specifically says that no American willingly participated. What people seem to be failing to notice is that the Russians were doing Pro and Anti-Trump, as well as Pro and Anti-Hillary...and then immediately after the election, kept stirring the pot with anti-Trump. You are being played to create dissent, to create chaos, and you're gleefully letting it happen. You have a media establishment that hates Trump, you have Democratic politicians who are willing to let the country go up in flames because they aren't getting what they want, and instead of saying 'Gee, maybe we'd better notice that Russia is screwing us all up' they're saying 'No sacrifice is too great to bring down Trump'.
Record breaking snowfall and cold, really? I think if they were to dig further back they'd find snowfalls and temperatures far worse than what they're claiming are 'record breaking'. They might very well be...records for a short time ago.
When will everyone realize that they're playing us all off against one another in order to keep us from going after -them-?
As long as -all- hate crimes are put up, with none being dis-included because some believe it's impossible to commit a hate crime against them, then I'm for this.
Oh my, you mean the SJW initiatives Google has been fostering are now starting to backfire on them? The problem with this sort of data is that it will -only- look at the numbers. It won't factor in things like attendance, work reviews, overtime worked, wage negotiations...it's never a case of 'the numbers will show what the numbers will show' in the case of this sort of data request. In order to gain an exact idea of WHY those numbers exist, you have to look into those other factors as well. You can't just say 'but but but SEXISM.'
I see no problem here. If the powers that be would restrict this sort of thing to stopping CP, then I'm all for it. Well done to the FBI, either way, on this case.
See, what I would like to know is how much the women were hired on for vs what the men were hired on for...you know, initial salaries. If they started equal, but over time the men got raises because of time worked or particularly great contributions to the company, then there's no problem. However, if women were initially hired on for less than the men, or it could be proven that they worked an equal number of hours or made equal fantastic contributions, then there's a problem. The biggest tell would be, honestly, the initial salary for equally qualified candidates of both genders. Raw salary numbers without context won't tell you a thing, especially if there are more men working for Google then women.
Don't like it? Don't use it. That simple. I'm willing to bet that the 'backlash' is he extremely loud 3% of the population that has perfected seeming like a much larger group than they actually are.
As a side note, gotta love the way my formatting was killed >.
First, I still find it amusing that people essentially equate communism and socialism. While there are similarities there are more than a few key differences...but I digress from the topic at hand. First and foremost, there is no need whatsoever for CEO's to make the money they do. It's ridiculous, especially considering that they make bonuses on top of their already exorbitant salaries...sometimes even when a company is failing, as we've seen in recent years. Secondly, as much as I like the intent of the law in question, it won't work...as many others have pointed out, the CEO's will find ways around it. In order to make something like this work, every single country in the world would need to be onboard, and it would require a complete revamp of laws regarding economic policy. Laws are never black and white, those that write them either leave the in shades of grey (loopholes), or lawyers find ways of adding loopholes. The unfortunate part of all of this is that we could have probably stopped this excessive executive acquisition of wealth decades ago, but unfortunately we didn't have information and communication technology like we do today (see: Internet). Now, barring armed revolution, it may be too late because big business is imbedded into the law books and governments like a disease-bearing tick. They've had a lot of time to gain influence and shape legislation right under our noses. Ahhh well. So, to answer the question posed more directly: yes , on the condition it could be made to work...otherwise, pointless.