I think the real problem is determining specific cause. There are millions of things that are legal for people to do that increase your chance of death. Like driving a big diesel truck around. Or being sick and being your waitress. Or littering. Or Keeping a big dog next door. They all increase your chance of death.
I think the real problem is that you cant write laws for everything so everyone is safe. I really am not arguing for or against legislating against smoking, just for using more personal responsibility and less legislation. Preventing smoking indoors is a good legislative thing, Preventing smoking outside isnt. If someone is smoking near you outside, walk away. If a bar allows smoking, dont go to that bar. It seems unfair for the country to legislate what companies or organizations should be allowed inside property they own. I just think that people should rely more on common sense and logic than "IM GOING TO PROTEST TO MAKE THAT ILLEGAL, AND THEN SUE YOU!"./rant!
I think you are right, on some level. But its also kind of silly. When in society, you have to learn to deal with others, even if they do things you dont like. Its called life.
It annoys me when a person on an escalator is slow or fat, and I cant get around them. Do I have any rights in that situation? No.
It bothers me when people drive ridiculously slow or fast, when they park oddly, when they drive huge SUV's that are bad for the environment. Do I have any rights in that situation? No.
Sometimes keeping things safe for the masses is bad. Life isnt safe. Learn to deal with it.
I wont comment on the bad part, but its only expensive becuase its taxed ridiculously to make it expensive. The idea is/was that on some level, tobacco is a price-sensitive good and that people might use less as it became more expensive. I think it seems pretty obvious that its not.
And if the GP meant expensive in the societal-sense, then butter or fast food is much worse.
Dictionary.com defines Innovation as "The act of introducing something new." It doesnt need to be completely new or never seen before. 95% of innovation is about building on existing things -- Thats how humanity progresses.
Most innovation is about finding a new application for an existing idea, or about combining two existing things in a neat and *new* way. Innovation doesnt require completely new ideas, just new applications.
If we use your definition of innovation, then it rarely, if ever, happens. Every genius, in virtually every field worth mentioning (physics, math, CS, any science, business, economics, politics), is just building upon previous work done in the related subjects.
Get a grip. MS has done plenty of innovation, and not only in computer science, but also in business, marketing, operations, and HR.
Really, you pay the insurance company to assume a small portion of risk, the rest of your payment goes to other larger insurance companies to re-insure the company you pay to, and anything left over goes towards litigation of claims and lawyers.
The real problem with Insurance companies is that they have so much clout in the legal system and political system, that its virtually impossible for new insurance companies to enter the fray. Its a market without REAL competition on the backend. And of course, in the US, its ILLEGAL to have a not-for-profit insurance company (even though, thats the most logical type of insurance -- purely not-for profit aggregation of risk). I'll let you guess why? Nothing logical, they just paid millions to lobby for it.
Insurance these days is less about providing real risk transfer or risk aggregation, and more about supporting the beast and providing subsidization between companies and insurance products. I wont even touch on Healthcare insurance, becuase thats EVEN WORSE.
Whitacre doesnt have a business degree of any sort.
"A native of Ennis, Texas, Whitacre graduated from Texas Tech University in 1964 with a bachelor's degree in industrial engineering. He began his career with Southwestern Bell Telephone Company in 1963 as a facility engineer in Lubbock. He progressed through a series of assignments in the company's operational departments in Texas, Arkansas and Kansas." Source -- SBC Corp Info, www.SBC.com
Who needs good management when you have monopoly powers?
I might agree with you, but it is not out of lack of want or desire to be as corrupted and ridiculous.
Moreso, it stems from the democratic parties real inability to organize their party effectively. The republicans with proper business friends have no such troubles. I would bet everything I have that if the dems could get organized, we would see an equal amount of corruption.
Just as the GP said, Politics is politics. If you think differently, you are only kidding yourself and playing into their A vs B mentality. Regardless of whether you decide to vote for Giant Douche or Turd Sandwhich, you are still getting worth berating.
BTW, your sig is interesting, and I fully disagree with it, but I dont want to debate it.
The reasonable person standard is a common use in courts. The whole reason you use "reasonable" person is so that then courts (and jury's) can make decisions about specific cases.
You dont actually WANT to define reasonable, because it can change over time. The reasonable person standard, however, makes it clear that if there is a problem, the courts and peers will decide.
This is common in contract, liability, even criminal law. WHy not use it here?
Its unfortunate that you are so mis-informed as to the real cost of employees. The real cost of an employee is about 40-50% of their salary (of course, depending on their salary. Some of these items are fixed costs..). Lets see: taxes add about 12%, benefits about 10-20%, insurance another 3-5%, moving, setup, training costs: 5-10%, and the list goes on. That already gets you to AT LEAST 30% of their salary. I say this as a person who owns a small tech startup with programmers and sales people. Obviously, these numbers dont apply to large companies. With 95% of businesses in the USA as small businesses though, I think these numbers are more relevant.
There are many good reasons for cubes, and they are not about trying to cram as many people into small areas (Although that is possible for those employers who are stupid). The real reason include:
1 - They are easy. Working with construction workers requires employees not be in the office, but assembling cubes over night is easy and workable. This results in lost productivity, lost sales. Plus, Construction is messy and often takes longer than expected. Not Worth It. 2 - They are flexible. You can move them around if you move spaces. If you construct walls on a 2-3 year office lease, and the move at the end you have to repeat your expense on building walls. Thats stupid. I'd rather give my guys more money. 3 - Replacement of parts is cheap. Something gets broken? No problem -- order a replacement. Parts are cheap and easy to be had on systems that are 2-3 years old. 4 - The most obvious answer, they are cheaper to purchase new than building walls (Even wall dividers).
#4 is where the numbers tie in from above. The point is, small businesses dont have money to just waste. Its always win/lose, cost vs benefit. If you want to talk about being pretentious, thats needing an office for every employee.
Cubes themselves arent the problems. Like guns, its the people who use them incorrectly that cause the problems.
Independence is defined by the ability to defend your land from both military and cultural invasions.
drr. Wrong. True Independence requires the willingness of the population who resides in the disputed territory. Without that small thing, its call OCCUPATION. Just because china can defend "their land" from invaders doesnt make it more legitimate.
Try to think of economic policy along a continuum. At one end you have Capitalism (pure free market theory), and at the other end you have Communism (pure govt controlled theory). In the middle somewhere you have socialism.
Along this continnum you will find every modern country, at some point. This is just economics, not politics. So China and US right now will likely be as close to the capitalism side, most european countries in the middle, and former china and USSR, North korea, etc nearing the far communist side.
Politics is another continuum which is related, but distinctly separate. Along that line, you have democracy all the way to dictatorship. You could have, technically speaking a capitalistic dictatorship (think cuba) or a socialist monarchy, or any combination of the two lines.
Surely you see more combinations than others, but this is simple becuase certain combinations seem to work pretty well together, not becuase they are the same thing.
Oh I agree. I am totally pro 2nd amend. But its critical for people to realize that in order to successfully revolt and overthrow a government today is drastically different than it was 200 years ago. It requires the participation of the army at some level due to the massive tech differences.
Btw - a 50 Caliber rifle can make a serious hole in an apache attack helicopter.
True enough. And a missile attached to that apache can make a serious hole in a city, taking out hundreds of riflemen at once. Really, Technologically speaking, if some sort of easily deployable energy shield could be created, this would tend to negate the advances traditional military has over militias.
Worse yet, you might suffer catastrophic brain trauma when your head impacts with the widshield at 60 mph, and you might have to have a steering column surgically removed from your sternum.
Whats your point? Laws should prevent someone else from fucking with me, not me fucking with me.
If you apply economic logic like the GP, it makes more sense. But even then seat belt laws are a joke. It only matters in a society where the government pays for healthcare. Individuals should be responsible for their own decisions, instead of having government officials decide for them.
Some laws, no matter how good they might sound for me, are really removing decision making power from me and placing it into corrupt officials.
Slashdot Mirror
Too bad, huh? At least then no one could say the church was dull.
I agree with you, and I especially like your comments in above posts.
But lets be clear:
"the **RECENT** catholic position..."
Becuase, lets face it, they havent always the good guys. I still want to know whats underneath the vatican city. I bet diamonds, and aliens.
No, they wont. They will just move and procreate more. This has been going on for *50* years!.
Its not stopping anytime soon unless we put a bullet in them. Or something.
Step 4: They still kill you!
What exactly do you think the NSA is for?
Thats what they do. And now without silly rules to prevent data sharing, they will have free-reign.
Remember, the NSA gets more money than the FBI and CIA. With their powers combined, they can rule the planet!
Or just make the average citizens life horrible. You pick.
Your point is well taken. It makes sense.
/rant!
I think the real problem is determining specific cause. There are millions of things that are legal for people to do that increase your chance of death. Like driving a big diesel truck around. Or being sick and being your waitress. Or littering. Or Keeping a big dog next door. They all increase your chance of death.
I think the real problem is that you cant write laws for everything so everyone is safe. I really am not arguing for or against legislating against smoking, just for using more personal responsibility and less legislation. Preventing smoking indoors is a good legislative thing, Preventing smoking outside isnt. If someone is smoking near you outside, walk away. If a bar allows smoking, dont go to that bar. It seems unfair for the country to legislate what companies or organizations should be allowed inside property they own. I just think that people should rely more on common sense and logic than "IM GOING TO PROTEST TO MAKE THAT ILLEGAL, AND THEN SUE YOU!".
Oh I know what its called, I just prefer to use language that others can more readily understand.
I think you are right, on some level. But its also kind of silly. When in society, you have to learn to deal with others, even if they do things you dont like. Its called life.
It annoys me when a person on an escalator is slow or fat, and I cant get around them. Do I have any rights in that situation? No.
It bothers me when people drive ridiculously slow or fast, when they park oddly, when they drive huge SUV's that are bad for the environment. Do I have any rights in that situation? No.
Sometimes keeping things safe for the masses is bad. Life isnt safe. Learn to deal with it.
I wont comment on the bad part, but its only expensive becuase its taxed ridiculously to make it expensive. The idea is/was that on some level, tobacco is a price-sensitive good and that people might use less as it became more expensive. I think it seems pretty obvious that its not.
And if the GP meant expensive in the societal-sense, then butter or fast food is much worse.
And probably doing it much worse.
B
Whats your point?
Dictionary.com defines Innovation as "The act of introducing something new." It doesnt need to be completely new or never seen before. 95% of innovation is about building on existing things -- Thats how humanity progresses.
Most innovation is about finding a new application for an existing idea, or about combining two existing things in a neat and *new* way. Innovation doesnt require completely new ideas, just new applications.
If we use your definition of innovation, then it rarely, if ever, happens. Every genius, in virtually every field worth mentioning (physics, math, CS, any science, business, economics, politics), is just building upon previous work done in the related subjects.
Get a grip. MS has done plenty of innovation, and not only in computer science, but also in business, marketing, operations, and HR.
B
You are technically correct, but not complete.
Really, you pay the insurance company to assume a small portion of risk, the rest of your payment goes to other larger insurance companies to re-insure the company you pay to, and anything left over goes towards litigation of claims and lawyers.
The real problem with Insurance companies is that they have so much clout in the legal system and political system, that its virtually impossible for new insurance companies to enter the fray. Its a market without REAL competition on the backend. And of course, in the US, its ILLEGAL to have a not-for-profit insurance company (even though, thats the most logical type of insurance -- purely not-for profit aggregation of risk). I'll let you guess why? Nothing logical, they just paid millions to lobby for it.
Insurance these days is less about providing real risk transfer or risk aggregation, and more about supporting the beast and providing subsidization between companies and insurance products. I wont even touch on Healthcare insurance, becuase thats EVEN WORSE.
B
Whitacre doesnt have a business degree of any sort.
"A native of Ennis, Texas, Whitacre graduated from Texas Tech University in 1964 with a bachelor's degree in industrial engineering. He began his career with Southwestern Bell Telephone Company in 1963 as a facility engineer in Lubbock. He progressed through a series of assignments in the company's operational departments in Texas, Arkansas and Kansas."
Source -- SBC Corp Info, www.SBC.com
Who needs good management when you have monopoly powers?
B
This is the USA.
We dont care for your math or science. After all, we think that teaching Intelligent Design is a good idea.
Until you can prove to me that you found all this out from God, I dont like you.
B
I might agree with you, but it is not out of lack of want or desire to be as corrupted and ridiculous.
Moreso, it stems from the democratic parties real inability to organize their party effectively. The republicans with proper business friends have no such troubles. I would bet everything I have that if the dems could get organized, we would see an equal amount of corruption.
Just as the GP said, Politics is politics. If you think differently, you are only kidding yourself and playing into their A vs B mentality. Regardless of whether you decide to vote for Giant Douche or Turd Sandwhich, you are still getting worth berating.
BTW, your sig is interesting, and I fully disagree with it, but I dont want to debate it.
B
The reasonable person standard is a common use in courts. The whole reason you use "reasonable" person is so that then courts (and jury's) can make decisions about specific cases.
You dont actually WANT to define reasonable, because it can change over time. The reasonable person standard, however, makes it clear that if there is a problem, the courts and peers will decide.
This is common in contract, liability, even criminal law. WHy not use it here?
Good CEO's dont care about day to day, or even quarter to quarter fluctuations in their stock price, provided its not ridiculously drastic.
Good CEO's look long term. So should you.
Its unfortunate that you are so mis-informed as to the real cost of employees. The real cost of an employee is about 40-50% of their salary (of course, depending on their salary. Some of these items are fixed costs..). Lets see: taxes add about 12%, benefits about 10-20%, insurance another 3-5%, moving, setup, training costs: 5-10%, and the list goes on. That already gets you to AT LEAST 30% of their salary. I say this as a person who owns a small tech startup with programmers and sales people. Obviously, these numbers dont apply to large companies. With 95% of businesses in the USA as small businesses though, I think these numbers are more relevant.
There are many good reasons for cubes, and they are not about trying to cram as many people into small areas (Although that is possible for those employers who are stupid). The real reason include:
1 - They are easy. Working with construction workers requires employees not be in the office, but assembling cubes over night is easy and workable. This results in lost productivity, lost sales. Plus, Construction is messy and often takes longer than expected. Not Worth It.
2 - They are flexible. You can move them around if you move spaces. If you construct walls on a 2-3 year office lease, and the move at the end you have to repeat your expense on building walls. Thats stupid. I'd rather give my guys more money.
3 - Replacement of parts is cheap. Something gets broken? No problem -- order a replacement. Parts are cheap and easy to be had on systems that are 2-3 years old.
4 - The most obvious answer, they are cheaper to purchase new than building walls (Even wall dividers).
#4 is where the numbers tie in from above. The point is, small businesses dont have money to just waste. Its always win/lose, cost vs benefit. If you want to talk about being pretentious, thats needing an office for every employee.
Cubes themselves arent the problems. Like guns, its the people who use them incorrectly that cause the problems.
Independence is defined by the ability to defend your land from both military and cultural invasions.
drr. Wrong. True Independence requires the willingness of the population who resides in the disputed territory. Without that small thing, its call OCCUPATION. Just because china can defend "their land" from invaders doesnt make it more legitimate.
Try again next time, jimmy.
Independence is defined by the ability to defend your land from both military and cultural invasions.
Brr. Wrong. Independence requires the willingness of the population who resides there. Without that small thing, its call OCCUPATION.
Try again next time, jimmy.
Man. Have you swallowed that much propaganda that you really believe your government is good?
;p
I live in the US, and I know how bad the US is. Im not saying we are great, but jesus, at least admit your government is fucked up.
Oh wait...if you do, they will come get you!
[Not posted as AC becuase I HAVE balls, unlike some of the others who are targetting you]
I didnt say seat belts are a joke. I said seat belt laws are a joke. Critical difference.
DRRR.. Wrong answer.
Try to think of economic policy along a continuum. At one end you have Capitalism (pure free market theory), and at the other end you have Communism (pure govt controlled theory). In the middle somewhere you have socialism.
Along this continnum you will find every modern country, at some point. This is just economics, not politics. So China and US right now will likely be as close to the capitalism side, most european countries in the middle, and former china and USSR, North korea, etc nearing the far communist side.
Politics is another continuum which is related, but distinctly separate. Along that line, you have democracy all the way to dictatorship. You could have, technically speaking a capitalistic dictatorship (think cuba) or a socialist monarchy, or any combination of the two lines.
Surely you see more combinations than others, but this is simple becuase certain combinations seem to work pretty well together, not becuase they are the same thing.
Oh I agree. I am totally pro 2nd amend. But its critical for people to realize that in order to successfully revolt and overthrow a government today is drastically different than it was 200 years ago. It requires the participation of the army at some level due to the massive tech differences.
Btw - a 50 Caliber rifle can make a serious hole in an apache attack helicopter.
True enough. And a missile attached to that apache can make a serious hole in a city, taking out hundreds of riflemen at once. Really, Technologically speaking, if some sort of easily deployable energy shield could be created, this would tend to negate the advances traditional military has over militias.
Worse yet, you might suffer catastrophic brain trauma when your head impacts with the widshield at 60 mph, and you might have to have a steering column surgically removed from your sternum.
Whats your point? Laws should prevent someone else from fucking with me, not me fucking with me.
If you apply economic logic like the GP, it makes more sense. But even then seat belt laws are a joke. It only matters in a society where the government pays for healthcare. Individuals should be responsible for their own decisions, instead of having government officials decide for them.
Some laws, no matter how good they might sound for me, are really removing decision making power from me and placing it into corrupt officials.