That's a beautiful way to put it. I'm in the USA, but it applies equally well here than it does in Canada. Things are so bad that you find yourself reverting to sarcasm and funny anecdotes in order to make the obvious... well, obviouser. How much more obvious does our slavery to the modern system have to get? Well, apparently more obviously, so we need Mouseland stories... a LOT of Mouseland stories.
It's impossible to effect a change of government in the United States. The problem isn't Bush and the Neo-Cons. The problem is the two-party system that ENSURES that a pro-corporation, pro-war, anti-worker, anti-Constitution politician is in the White House.
It's not like about half of the nation outvotes the other half. No, it's more like about 95% of the nation outvotes the 5% who are sensible thinkers who value the basis of the American Republic. You know who I'm talking about: the Green, Nader and Libertarian voters. They are marginalized and may as well not even exist.
You can't convince people to let go of their power bases no matter how successfully you prove that they are just supporting the same type of regime. Terrified of Liberals, the Conservatives vote for Bush and the Neo-Cons. Terrified of Conservatives, the Liberals vote for the authorized Democrat and the Neo-Libs. The end effect is a Presidency that gets more degraded with each asshole that sits in it. Reagan was a fairly terrible President; Bush I was too caught up in a a strong recession to show us how bad he was; Clinton was even more terrible than Reagan; and now we've a President that is taking serious Fascist steps. Even if a Democrat gets into the White House in January of 2009, the stage will be set for further mob rule against Constitutional law and the various traditions of the American Republic.
It's easy to blame Bush, but he's only achieved this level of power due to the complicity of the Republican-dominated Congress. When the Republicans weren't dominating oppressive and regressive legislation and tolerating any aspect of Bush's bad behavior, they were working hand in hand with anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of the so-called opposition party (the Democrats). Since there's no other party in American national politics, that was it for any possible attempts to control the excesses of the Presidency.
No matter who gets the White House in Jan 2009, the Iraq War will continue. The Congress is nearly 100% behind the war, even now. The American populace may say they're largely against the war, but when push comes to shove they "support the troops" and the slaughter just continues.
This is America, where the majority rules, no matter what. When the majority is mediocre, then mediocrity rules. If the majority isn't popular, then it's monetary. And both popular and monetary majorities are aligned with excessive executive power. It's too late for the USA now. It won't fix itself, so it must crumble... as happens to all Empires in history.
"Sorry"? Yes, you are sorry. 36 nations deliver better health care for less money per capita. It's not magic, and it's not hopeless -- obviously IT CAN BE DONE.
Your allergy to using government solutions is blinding you to the truth of the wholesale failure of using the profit motive to deliver health care. You may not listen to Limbaugh et al, yet you parrot the rightwingnut mantra almost word for word. You picked it up from the Rightwingnut Information Ministry one way or another. (BTW, isn't it funny how Limbaugh and the rest have NO PROBLEM using government to deliver warfare (and corporate welfare) solutions? Food for thought, eh?)
Since corporations can't be controlled by anything less than government, government is the solution to the American health care crisis, one way or another.
So, I just proved your viewpoint dead wrong, and your howling isn't going to change that... fuckmeat. If you can't stand the truth or the name-calling, then leave this forum so we adults can continue discussing the matter without your sophomoric whining.
P.S. #1 in cost, #37 in service, and the only First World nation WITHOUT universal health care. Your idiocy can't do away with those truths, and it's time for those facts to change.
Considering America's health care system is rated in the world at #1 in per-capita costs and #37 for quality of service, you have obviously confused your nasty and immoral CORPORATIONS with your government. Please report to a nearby college for deprogramming (i.e. education). Oh, and turn off O'Reilly, Limbaugh and the rest of the proven rightwingnut propaganda ministers who have so misled you into thinking what you did. kthkbye
Yeah, that's fucking brilliant, you shit-ape. Lego tooled up to fulfill orders, yet for some strange reason extra production on the same lines is less profitable. RETARD.
Get a clue. Generally, when you setup a production line, you want to run the most pieces possible off of it. Costs will amortize per piece, regardless of how much more the material costs are for the increased production. We already know material and energy costs per piece allow profitability, since they allowed profits for the 1st piece; hence, they allow profits for the 1000000th piece. If you setup your supply chain right, in fact, the millionth piece should be MORE profitable due to economies of scale.
Lego has to pay for design, marketing, and supply of plastic and energy. That really can't be that complicated. What (artificially) complicates that stuff today is called "fraud". The company spends its time trying to game its finances instead of concentrating on manufacturing its product or service.
If under the spell of this downsizing-bullshit (i.e. latest corporate fad) that Lego somehow makes less profit by creating and shipping more product, then they deserve to take the hit and more. Corporations are progressively forgetting they are supposed to make a profit from the exercise of gainful labor... not from crooked financial games with suppliers, bankers and brokers.
It was always the responsibility of the Lego executives to design, market, build and ship Lego toys... all at a profit. If they were instead downsizing and then buying up derivatives to shore up some shrunken margins, then they deserve to be ass-raped at the major gift-giving season. They should have been investing in PRODUCTION.
The system's out-of-control expenses runs on near-limitless "lawyering".
So, put a limit on the lawyering. We can even make it voluntary, to wit: there can be two levels of suit.
Simple Level: State the facts during your filing and let judge/jury decide case. No motions, changes of venue, retractions, or any of that crap. File it (note: the side that fails to file automatically loses) and wait. You barely see a judge/jury, it happens so fast; all the time taken is behind the scenes with clerks shuffling paper, judges reading cases, and juries deliberating. You get 1 free appeal; after that, you can try to get into the Complex Level system for more appeals.
Complex Level: Post a bond as a fraction of yearly income, etc., so you gain access to the "old" system of unlimited lawyering. File as many motions as you want; the sky's the limit (like now). Hire Cochran to defend your speeding ticket for all I care.
The catch here is that BOTH parties must agree to the level, or it devolves to "simple". So, if a corporation wants to drag a poor citizen through court, all the citizen has to do is refuse to post the Complex Level bond. The case will then be thrown into Simple Level mode, and the corporation will have to "file and smile" and leave it up to the court to decide. Note this will control the appeals, too, since a failed appeal can't go to the Complex Level if one of the sides doesn't agree to it; it must remain at the Simple Level, and you've already spent your 1 appeal, sorry.
Of course, some little guy might try to drag some company through the Simple Level system and use the simplicity to snow a judge/jury into granting him a judgment. Obviously I don't give a shit about that. The law has been completely corrupted by the lawyer class, to have made it possible to have a case too complex for the Simple Level. The existence of the Simple Level can only force the legal system to avoid overcomplication.
The lawyer class will never let the Simple Level be implemented, since it will relegate them to clerks for many cases. Lawyers want everything to be complicated since they can (1) spend more time (or at least claim they did), hence charge more money, and (2) find loophole after loophole to get their criminal scum rich clients off the hook.
You need to get the fuck over yourself with these horseshit comparisons. Cars are useful and the right of the citizen to own and operate. The same thing applies (at least in the USA) with guns. In high contrast, there's no use, or right to own and operate with a national ID card (or comprehensive database entry). NID is only useful to the government, and not only that, but fulfills a sick government need for excessive legal control of our lives... which is the very meta-topic that is always voiced here on Slashdot, you pathetic moron.
The NID card is a tool of oppression. A free people will arrange for a limited government which has little use for such pervasive ID controls. Stop pretending that you don't fucking understand this, you unbelievable shitball.
If it's NOT possible for them to NOT be doing something bad, then I'm sure you don't mind if those inevitable, documented bad things are included in the Wiki page.
1%? That sounds about right. Telecommuting is the "wave of the future" that will never arrive. Keeping workers at home does save on certain overhead costs, but not only have corporations sought to save on those costs by offshoring (to officed employees in other nations) and outsourcing (to officed employees in other companies), but companies are also authoritarian entities which can't stand to leave many employees unsupervised.
It makes you wonder, doesn't it? All those years of designing, testing, distributing and marketing collaborative apps, and we STILL avoid using them for the most part in IT organizations. When the designers of a product don't see much point in using it, one has to seriously question the original assertion of utility.
Firstly, telecommuting (TC) is a scam perpetuated upon the news media. TC is being primarily used by the management class to (1) avoid work for certain politically-connected managers, or (2) overwork managers by making them constantly available (hence, constantly "at work").
Secondly, a lot of TC-able jobs have been realized not by making them TC, but by offshoring and outsourcing them.
You heard a lot about TC in the 1990s. It just didn't happen. Managers were the primary class of employee who were able to take advantage of it. Most of the workforce that could apply for it then as now are still forced to drive to work and be directly supervised.
You need to recognize that I used perfectly understandable English when I posted my reply. The film is funny and enjoyable in a way that people like you just don't accept... being humorless drones, perhaps.
The SWK is going at the entire matter in the wrong way, so it's just a matter of perception. I laugh at the video and WITH the SWK... whether he chooses to laugh or not. He needs to get over it. This is true in the ABSOLUTE SENSE, since the video has been released in the wild and cannot be removed. It is pointless to be concerned about something that cannot be undone.
And for the record, drone, I grew up as an abused kid, so I fully comprehend what it's like to be the butt of jokes. I had to just get over it -- yes, that's right, ME. Being the object of a StarWars-esque video would have been a soft touch that I would have preferred.
The SWK should take his lemons and make lemonaid. He did what he did out of his love for the genre. There are many who can join him in laughter. Facing pure fucking reality, he should accept the video and try to capitalize on it in some way. For example, he SHOULD be signing autographs when asked, and put in something like "Jedi Drunken Master". His fan base would grow.
Like I said to the OP, you really need to get over yourself. The dark cloud exists and there's NOTHING that can be done about it. No pack of Liberals are going to storm the Internet to remove the video. Additionally, people like me love those films, and will continue to watch them. Just accept it, since you are completely powerless to do anything about it. As for the SWK, he should face the reality that in that dark cloud there is a significant silver lining, and that he should "stop whinin' and grab the linin'", making use of it.
Look, fucknozzle, I could have sworn I used English words when I wrote "WITH HIM", and "NOT AT HIM".
Wasn't that clear enough? Is THAT so fucking hard for YOU to understand? Either you believe me, or you think I'm a liar... which in that case, stick it up your fucking ass, turdgoblin.
Oh, get over yourself. I had heard about the "Star Wars Kid" many times before a friend introduced me to the videos (I didn't have broadband). The videos are just wonderful, and are NOT bullying to people like me. Sure, it must have been a good deal of embarassment, but now we have a set of videos that allow people to laugh WITH the Star Wars Kid, not at him. It's now part of the species fan filmia, which anyone can go out and capture when they feel the need for a good laugh.
The SWK will simply have to get over it all, and in fact should proudly take credit for his (unintentional) participation. Nerdy and overweight, he STILL did what he did out of his sheer love of the genre, and to a significant extent I'm sure the video producers did the same. As the years pass I hope he'll come to understand all that, and that it will take much of the sting out of the embarrassment he experienced. He's already made some money off the deal, so perhaps the maturing process has begun.
Don't deal with the receptionist. Ask for the HR Department instead. HR is definitely the place to get a RIM job. People are getting RIM jobs from the ladies in HR all the time.
A lot of people apply for those. Heck, I could really use a RIM job myself. I hear that they're really satisfying.
Firstly, I don't consider that you answered my question. Laws that prohibit capital flow in one direction can be used also to also prohibit capital flows in any direction. One of your other respondents said that what's different in practice is just a matter of political will, hence (I conclude) one flow tends to be regulated while another is unregulated... producing the imbalance you identified, I suspect.
Secondly, an emissions tax is an attempt to force a company to realize what's now known as "externalities". I think the same philosophy can be applied to laws against the outrageous downsizing, offshoring and outsourcing we're seeing now. Unless you'd care to argue otherwise, businesses like individuals should pay for the things they use. When they pollute, they abuse the environment. When they move, they abuse community investment. When they underpay employees, they abuse the public welfare system. When they dictate the tax system, they abuse all concepts of citizenship.
What competitors? If capital cannot flee, then the same mechanisms (or force of law) can stop the capital or product inflows that compete. Something in your logic is flawed.
[A]lways doing what is "best for the economy" involves completely forgetting about social, ethical and moral considerations?
Francis Fukuyama apparently thinks so. Neo-Liberalism (and its more militant arm, Neo-Conservatism) agree with him. The plan is that all social structures are going to be destroyed in order to make a "society" of consumer bees who live only to buzz in a capitalist hive, while constantly watching markets to take immediate advantage of anything that passes near enough to be stung then eaten.
(Wow. I just described the classic American yuppie.)
So, when I get swordfish steak, can I assume that man's ability to perform genetic engineering has now grown so great that bovine gill structures exist?
Well, there's drift, which we can say is like a raft on the ocean. Then there's motion that is represented by a speedboat with a couple JATOs strapped to the back -- lit and roaring. The latter metaphor is more apt for what's going on in the so-called "Conservative" Congress. It's not "drift". It's "rocketing".
McCain's Presidency will only be achieved by giving in to the militancy (hence spending-craziness) of the new American political picture. After all, Hillary is going to continue to play the "support the war" card, and that will ONLY force the Republican side to bid up on the same issue.
If we're lucky, America will have its Saigon '75 moment before then, sparing the candidates from talking up the losing battle and playing two-faced positions "against" each other. Instead, they can accuse each other about being soft on border security, yakity yak.
I estimate that since late 2001, I've been called "Communist" about 300 times, "Socialist" another 150-200, and have had my patriotism or nationalism seriously questioned (even up to the accusation of "treason") about 500 times. These events are incomparable to what happened before 911. So, I can say with some surety that 911 only brought out America's simmering trend of civilian militancy. This is well in line with your observation.
So, Goering's observation (which I confirmed verbatim by obtaining Gustavus Gilbert's book, "Nuremburg Diaries" -- hint hint) about scaring a Republic into supporting Fascism is an accurate prediction about Western culture at least, and may reflect all Human cultures to some degree.
I highly recommend obtaining Gilbert's book. Goering and others in the Nuremburg clink had a lot more to say about the structure and attitudes of their hyperpatriotic government. They supported the effective worship of the leader, even to the point of accepting all blame just to clear said leader of any taint. They strongly advocated the violent supression of dissent, and the monopoly control of state elements leading to the formation of public knowledge (i.e. manipulating public opinion via propaganda). Too many of these viewpoints apply to what's happening in the West (primarily America and Britain) today.
(To be fair, Gilbert's book is biased. It is just another book written by the victors, who have obviously now re-arranged the world into another Third Reich, but a T.R. dominated by a class and philosophy of bankers and capitalism. We can clearly say that certain elements of the T.R. actually won the war since they were already inherent in the Allied powers, or they were quickly adopted by same.)
In many of your examples, "winning" involved the ascension of a more powerful statist element, primarily the superpowers... who have produced great militancy and death around the globe. Like most worshippers of Western "civilization", this is your great blind spot.
Islamic Terrorism has always been marginalized by the America-Britain-Israel Axis. You could make a good case for a German-France Axis also doing the same, since they are also major arms dealers for equipping the Middle East for warfare (internal and external).
Islamic Terrorism cannot be defeated by the same power that has fostered it... namely, the oil-grabbing militancy of the US and Britain. Actual defeat or significant marginalization would require a disconnected power (like China) to come in with a military campaign. Of course, China's motivation now to do so is either zero for political reasons, or some positive quantity due to a desire for oil. So, such a defeat will never happen.
I really don't understand all these comments I've heard since 911 about "defeating terrorism". Like Noam Chomsky has paraphrasedly said, if you want to stop terrorism, you have to stop performing terrorist acts yourself. Since the USA now blatantly attacks countries pre-emptively (ironically, rather than just sending in CIA hit teams as in the past 2 generations), then clearly the practice of statist terrorism is not going to stop... hence the terrorist reprisal system will not stop.
To sum up: Americans refuse to admit they live in the largest Evil Empire ever known. Economically, America has attacked the world for at least 2 generations, and America's concurrent worldwide militancy has been done largely to support that economic war. THIS is the cause of many of the world's woes, and such an Evil Empire just DEMANDS endless and growing reprisals. As we speak here, yet another youth in Iraq watches today's bloodshed, notes the US soldiers involved, and then takes a vow to bring America down. Empires demand terrorism.
Yeah, it sure does make me sick, too! I mean, threatening to kill a witness is yet another crime, and then you have to kill the witness of that crime -- which is the original witness! Rizler's strategy is disgustingly inept! Only threaten to kill people you intend to kill anyway! In fact, skip the "threatening" step... the prudent tactician goes right to the kill!
The sad thing is, I'm not even sure I'm joking. I don't even have an MBA.:^P
Slashdot Mirror
That's a beautiful way to put it. I'm in the USA, but it applies equally well here than it does in Canada. Things are so bad that you find yourself reverting to sarcasm and funny anecdotes in order to make the obvious ... well, obviouser. How much more obvious does our slavery to the modern system have to get? Well, apparently more obviously, so we need Mouseland stories ... a LOT of Mouseland stories.
It's impossible to effect a change of government in the United States. The problem isn't Bush and the Neo-Cons. The problem is the two-party system that ENSURES that a pro-corporation, pro-war, anti-worker, anti-Constitution politician is in the White House.
... as happens to all Empires in history.
It's not like about half of the nation outvotes the other half. No, it's more like about 95% of the nation outvotes the 5% who are sensible thinkers who value the basis of the American Republic. You know who I'm talking about: the Green, Nader and Libertarian voters. They are marginalized and may as well not even exist.
You can't convince people to let go of their power bases no matter how successfully you prove that they are just supporting the same type of regime. Terrified of Liberals, the Conservatives vote for Bush and the Neo-Cons. Terrified of Conservatives, the Liberals vote for the authorized Democrat and the Neo-Libs. The end effect is a Presidency that gets more degraded with each asshole that sits in it. Reagan was a fairly terrible President; Bush I was too caught up in a a strong recession to show us how bad he was; Clinton was even more terrible than Reagan; and now we've a President that is taking serious Fascist steps. Even if a Democrat gets into the White House in January of 2009, the stage will be set for further mob rule against Constitutional law and the various traditions of the American Republic.
It's easy to blame Bush, but he's only achieved this level of power due to the complicity of the Republican-dominated Congress. When the Republicans weren't dominating oppressive and regressive legislation and tolerating any aspect of Bush's bad behavior, they were working hand in hand with anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of the so-called opposition party (the Democrats). Since there's no other party in American national politics, that was it for any possible attempts to control the excesses of the Presidency.
No matter who gets the White House in Jan 2009, the Iraq War will continue. The Congress is nearly 100% behind the war, even now. The American populace may say they're largely against the war, but when push comes to shove they "support the troops" and the slaughter just continues.
This is America, where the majority rules, no matter what. When the majority is mediocre, then mediocrity rules. If the majority isn't popular, then it's monetary. And both popular and monetary majorities are aligned with excessive executive power. It's too late for the USA now. It won't fix itself, so it must crumble
"Sorry"? Yes, you are sorry. 36 nations deliver better health care for less money per capita. It's not magic, and it's not hopeless -- obviously IT CAN BE DONE.
... fuckmeat. If you can't stand the truth or the name-calling, then leave this forum so we adults can continue discussing the matter without your sophomoric whining.
Your allergy to using government solutions is blinding you to the truth of the wholesale failure of using the profit motive to deliver health care. You may not listen to Limbaugh et al, yet you parrot the rightwingnut mantra almost word for word. You picked it up from the Rightwingnut Information Ministry one way or another. (BTW, isn't it funny how Limbaugh and the rest have NO PROBLEM using government to deliver warfare (and corporate welfare) solutions? Food for thought, eh?)
Since corporations can't be controlled by anything less than government, government is the solution to the American health care crisis, one way or another.
So, I just proved your viewpoint dead wrong, and your howling isn't going to change that
P.S. #1 in cost, #37 in service, and the only First World nation WITHOUT universal health care. Your idiocy can't do away with those truths, and it's time for those facts to change.
Considering America's health care system is rated in the world at #1 in per-capita costs and #37 for quality of service, you have obviously confused your nasty and immoral CORPORATIONS with your government. Please report to a nearby college for deprogramming (i.e. education). Oh, and turn off O'Reilly, Limbaugh and the rest of the proven rightwingnut propaganda ministers who have so misled you into thinking what you did. kthkbye
Yeah, that's fucking brilliant, you shit-ape. Lego tooled up to fulfill orders, yet for some strange reason extra production on the same lines is less profitable. RETARD.
... not from crooked financial games with suppliers, bankers and brokers.
... all at a profit. If they were instead downsizing and then buying up derivatives to shore up some shrunken margins, then they deserve to be ass-raped at the major gift-giving season. They should have been investing in PRODUCTION.
Get a clue. Generally, when you setup a production line, you want to run the most pieces possible off of it. Costs will amortize per piece, regardless of how much more the material costs are for the increased production. We already know material and energy costs per piece allow profitability, since they allowed profits for the 1st piece; hence, they allow profits for the 1000000th piece. If you setup your supply chain right, in fact, the millionth piece should be MORE profitable due to economies of scale.
Lego has to pay for design, marketing, and supply of plastic and energy. That really can't be that complicated. What (artificially) complicates that stuff today is called "fraud". The company spends its time trying to game its finances instead of concentrating on manufacturing its product or service.
If under the spell of this downsizing-bullshit (i.e. latest corporate fad) that Lego somehow makes less profit by creating and shipping more product, then they deserve to take the hit and more. Corporations are progressively forgetting they are supposed to make a profit from the exercise of gainful labor
It was always the responsibility of the Lego executives to design, market, build and ship Lego toys
The system's out-of-control expenses runs on near-limitless "lawyering".
So, put a limit on the lawyering. We can even make it voluntary, to wit: there can be two levels of suit.
Simple Level: State the facts during your filing and let judge/jury decide case. No motions, changes of venue, retractions, or any of that crap. File it (note: the side that fails to file automatically loses) and wait. You barely see a judge/jury, it happens so fast; all the time taken is behind the scenes with clerks shuffling paper, judges reading cases, and juries deliberating. You get 1 free appeal; after that, you can try to get into the Complex Level system for more appeals.
Complex Level: Post a bond as a fraction of yearly income, etc., so you gain access to the "old" system of unlimited lawyering. File as many motions as you want; the sky's the limit (like now). Hire Cochran to defend your speeding ticket for all I care.
The catch here is that BOTH parties must agree to the level, or it devolves to "simple". So, if a corporation wants to drag a poor citizen through court, all the citizen has to do is refuse to post the Complex Level bond. The case will then be thrown into Simple Level mode, and the corporation will have to "file and smile" and leave it up to the court to decide. Note this will control the appeals, too, since a failed appeal can't go to the Complex Level if one of the sides doesn't agree to it; it must remain at the Simple Level, and you've already spent your 1 appeal, sorry.
Of course, some little guy might try to drag some company through the Simple Level system and use the simplicity to snow a judge/jury into granting him a judgment. Obviously I don't give a shit about that. The law has been completely corrupted by the lawyer class, to have made it possible to have a case too complex for the Simple Level. The existence of the Simple Level can only force the legal system to avoid overcomplication.
The lawyer class will never let the Simple Level be implemented, since it will relegate them to clerks for many cases. Lawyers want everything to be complicated since they can (1) spend more time (or at least claim they did), hence charge more money, and (2) find loophole after loophole to get their criminal scum rich clients off the hook.
You need to get the fuck over yourself with these horseshit comparisons. Cars are useful and the right of the citizen to own and operate. The same thing applies (at least in the USA) with guns. In high contrast, there's no use, or right to own and operate with a national ID card (or comprehensive database entry). NID is only useful to the government, and not only that, but fulfills a sick government need for excessive legal control of our lives ... which is the very meta-topic that is always voiced here on Slashdot, you pathetic moron.
The NID card is a tool of oppression. A free people will arrange for a limited government which has little use for such pervasive ID controls. Stop pretending that you don't fucking understand this, you unbelievable shitball.
If it's NOT possible for them to NOT be doing something bad, then I'm sure you don't mind if those inevitable, documented bad things are included in the Wiki page.
1%? That sounds about right. Telecommuting is the "wave of the future" that will never arrive. Keeping workers at home does save on certain overhead costs, but not only have corporations sought to save on those costs by offshoring (to officed employees in other nations) and outsourcing (to officed employees in other companies), but companies are also authoritarian entities which can't stand to leave many employees unsupervised.
It makes you wonder, doesn't it? All those years of designing, testing, distributing and marketing collaborative apps, and we STILL avoid using them for the most part in IT organizations. When the designers of a product don't see much point in using it, one has to seriously question the original assertion of utility.
Firstly, telecommuting (TC) is a scam perpetuated upon the news media. TC is being primarily used by the management class to (1) avoid work for certain politically-connected managers, or (2) overwork managers by making them constantly available (hence, constantly "at work").
Secondly, a lot of TC-able jobs have been realized not by making them TC, but by offshoring and outsourcing them.
You heard a lot about TC in the 1990s. It just didn't happen. Managers were the primary class of employee who were able to take advantage of it. Most of the workforce that could apply for it then as now are still forced to drive to work and be directly supervised.
You need to recognize that I used perfectly understandable English when I posted my reply. The film is funny and enjoyable in a way that people like you just don't accept ... being humorless drones, perhaps.
... whether he chooses to laugh or not. He needs to get over it. This is true in the ABSOLUTE SENSE, since the video has been released in the wild and cannot be removed. It is pointless to be concerned about something that cannot be undone.
The SWK is going at the entire matter in the wrong way, so it's just a matter of perception. I laugh at the video and WITH the SWK
And for the record, drone, I grew up as an abused kid, so I fully comprehend what it's like to be the butt of jokes. I had to just get over it -- yes, that's right, ME. Being the object of a StarWars-esque video would have been a soft touch that I would have preferred.
The SWK should take his lemons and make lemonaid. He did what he did out of his love for the genre. There are many who can join him in laughter. Facing pure fucking reality, he should accept the video and try to capitalize on it in some way. For example, he SHOULD be signing autographs when asked, and put in something like "Jedi Drunken Master". His fan base would grow.
Like I said to the OP, you really need to get over yourself. The dark cloud exists and there's NOTHING that can be done about it. No pack of Liberals are going to storm the Internet to remove the video. Additionally, people like me love those films, and will continue to watch them. Just accept it, since you are completely powerless to do anything about it. As for the SWK, he should face the reality that in that dark cloud there is a significant silver lining, and that he should "stop whinin' and grab the linin'", making use of it.
Look, fucknozzle, I could have sworn I used English words when I wrote "WITH HIM", and "NOT AT HIM".
... which in that case, stick it up your fucking ass, turdgoblin.
Wasn't that clear enough? Is THAT so fucking hard for YOU to understand? Either you believe me, or you think I'm a liar
Your plan is completely and despicably evil.
:^D
Good work! I can't wait for it to be implemented.
Oh, get over yourself. I had heard about the "Star Wars Kid" many times before a friend introduced me to the videos (I didn't have broadband). The videos are just wonderful, and are NOT bullying to people like me. Sure, it must have been a good deal of embarassment, but now we have a set of videos that allow people to laugh WITH the Star Wars Kid, not at him. It's now part of the species fan filmia, which anyone can go out and capture when they feel the need for a good laugh.
The SWK will simply have to get over it all, and in fact should proudly take credit for his (unintentional) participation. Nerdy and overweight, he STILL did what he did out of his sheer love of the genre, and to a significant extent I'm sure the video producers did the same. As the years pass I hope he'll come to understand all that, and that it will take much of the sting out of the embarrassment he experienced. He's already made some money off the deal, so perhaps the maturing process has begun.
Don't deal with the receptionist. Ask for the HR Department instead. HR is definitely the place to get a RIM job. People are getting RIM jobs from the ladies in HR all the time.
A lot of people apply for those. Heck, I could really use a RIM job myself. I hear that they're really satisfying.
Firstly, I don't consider that you answered my question. Laws that prohibit capital flow in one direction can be used also to also prohibit capital flows in any direction. One of your other respondents said that what's different in practice is just a matter of political will, hence (I conclude) one flow tends to be regulated while another is unregulated ... producing the imbalance you identified, I suspect.
Secondly, an emissions tax is an attempt to force a company to realize what's now known as "externalities". I think the same philosophy can be applied to laws against the outrageous downsizing, offshoring and outsourcing we're seeing now. Unless you'd care to argue otherwise, businesses like individuals should pay for the things they use. When they pollute, they abuse the environment. When they move, they abuse community investment. When they underpay employees, they abuse the public welfare system. When they dictate the tax system, they abuse all concepts of citizenship.
What competitors? If capital cannot flee, then the same mechanisms (or force of law) can stop the capital or product inflows that compete. Something in your logic is flawed.
[A]lways doing what is "best for the economy" involves completely forgetting about social, ethical and moral considerations?
Francis Fukuyama apparently thinks so. Neo-Liberalism (and its more militant arm, Neo-Conservatism) agree with him. The plan is that all social structures are going to be destroyed in order to make a "society" of consumer bees who live only to buzz in a capitalist hive, while constantly watching markets to take immediate advantage of anything that passes near enough to be stung then eaten.
(Wow. I just described the classic American yuppie.)
So, when I get swordfish steak, can I assume that man's ability to perform genetic engineering has now grown so great that bovine gill structures exist?
Well, there's drift, which we can say is like a raft on the ocean. Then there's motion that is represented by a speedboat with a couple JATOs strapped to the back -- lit and roaring. The latter metaphor is more apt for what's going on in the so-called "Conservative" Congress. It's not "drift". It's "rocketing".
McCain's Presidency will only be achieved by giving in to the militancy (hence spending-craziness) of the new American political picture. After all, Hillary is going to continue to play the "support the war" card, and that will ONLY force the Republican side to bid up on the same issue.
If we're lucky, America will have its Saigon '75 moment before then, sparing the candidates from talking up the losing battle and playing two-faced positions "against" each other. Instead, they can accuse each other about being soft on border security, yakity yak.
I estimate that since late 2001, I've been called "Communist" about 300 times, "Socialist" another 150-200, and have had my patriotism or nationalism seriously questioned (even up to the accusation of "treason") about 500 times. These events are incomparable to what happened before 911. So, I can say with some surety that 911 only brought out America's simmering trend of civilian militancy. This is well in line with your observation.
So, Goering's observation (which I confirmed verbatim by obtaining Gustavus Gilbert's book, "Nuremburg Diaries" -- hint hint) about scaring a Republic into supporting Fascism is an accurate prediction about Western culture at least, and may reflect all Human cultures to some degree.
I highly recommend obtaining Gilbert's book. Goering and others in the Nuremburg clink had a lot more to say about the structure and attitudes of their hyperpatriotic government. They supported the effective worship of the leader, even to the point of accepting all blame just to clear said leader of any taint. They strongly advocated the violent supression of dissent, and the monopoly control of state elements leading to the formation of public knowledge (i.e. manipulating public opinion via propaganda). Too many of these viewpoints apply to what's happening in the West (primarily America and Britain) today.
(To be fair, Gilbert's book is biased. It is just another book written by the victors, who have obviously now re-arranged the world into another Third Reich, but a T.R. dominated by a class and philosophy of bankers and capitalism. We can clearly say that certain elements of the T.R. actually won the war since they were already inherent in the Allied powers, or they were quickly adopted by same.)
In many of your examples, "winning" involved the ascension of a more powerful statist element, primarily the superpowers ... who have produced great militancy and death around the globe. Like most worshippers of Western "civilization", this is your great blind spot.
... namely, the oil-grabbing militancy of the US and Britain. Actual defeat or significant marginalization would require a disconnected power (like China) to come in with a military campaign. Of course, China's motivation now to do so is either zero for political reasons, or some positive quantity due to a desire for oil. So, such a defeat will never happen.
... hence the terrorist reprisal system will not stop.
Islamic Terrorism has always been marginalized by the America-Britain-Israel Axis. You could make a good case for a German-France Axis also doing the same, since they are also major arms dealers for equipping the Middle East for warfare (internal and external).
Islamic Terrorism cannot be defeated by the same power that has fostered it
I really don't understand all these comments I've heard since 911 about "defeating terrorism". Like Noam Chomsky has paraphrasedly said, if you want to stop terrorism, you have to stop performing terrorist acts yourself. Since the USA now blatantly attacks countries pre-emptively (ironically, rather than just sending in CIA hit teams as in the past 2 generations), then clearly the practice of statist terrorism is not going to stop
To sum up: Americans refuse to admit they live in the largest Evil Empire ever known. Economically, America has attacked the world for at least 2 generations, and America's concurrent worldwide militancy has been done largely to support that economic war. THIS is the cause of many of the world's woes, and such an Evil Empire just DEMANDS endless and growing reprisals. As we speak here, yet another youth in Iraq watches today's bloodshed, notes the US soldiers involved, and then takes a vow to bring America down. Empires demand terrorism.
Sooooo ... threatening to kill people is not evil, and is only some sort of side effect of being "greedy and stupid"? Really?
At which time does threatening to kill people for selfish reasons BECOME evil, chum?
Yeah, it sure does make me sick, too! I mean, threatening to kill a witness is yet another crime, and then you have to kill the witness of that crime -- which is the original witness! Rizler's strategy is disgustingly inept! Only threaten to kill people you intend to kill anyway! In fact, skip the "threatening" step ... the prudent tactician goes right to the kill!
:^P
The sad thing is, I'm not even sure I'm joking. I don't even have an MBA.