It would lose them $4.75 an hour! It's obvious why jobs are going overseas; the minimum wage is (pretty much) solely responsible for our job losses.
For what it's worth, the adjusted minimum wage is the lowest it has been in decades. Labor costs in the USA are higher, but I'd say that's a good thing. By the way, outsourcing is structural unemployment, which is a good thing - or, it would be if we had a support system for laid off workers that gave financial incentives to quickly finding jobs (i.e. wage insurance in addition to unemployment checks) or entering training for a new field.
Either eBay pulled the auctions or they never existed. I just searched for "Halo 2" and nothing fitting the description came up for over $200. So I don't know what the article submitter is blathering about.
I thought this was a common thing to do. I know that in my former hometown (Sheboygan, Wisconsin, USA), the city gets the water from Lake Michigan and purifies it. We also sanitized and purified our liquid waste and dumped that into Lake Michigan. I think that the story is that they're bottling it and selling it BECAUSE it's cleaned piss.
Social psychology aside, there's nothing wrong from drinking urine, even in its natural form. There is a joint disorder that can make itself apparent via high amounts of uric acid in the bloodstream, but oddly enough, there isn't much evidence showing that drinking urine causes this problem. I know that a former prime minister of India drank his own urine daily and lived to be about 100.
Does anyone know how Rutherford was able to get a sheet so thin? The experiment was done over a hundred years ago, and I'm not aware of any technologies that would have allowed for such precision cutting. (Offtopic, probably, but I don't really care. My curiosity is stronger than my karma.)
Oh, and depressions didn't happen as much because the GDP rarely moved, as I stated. However, "panics" (from what I can tell, they're pretty much slight depressions or severe recessions) happened when many firms tried to withdraw from banks at once. Off the top of my head, there was the Panic of 1877, and I believe there were two others in the 1830s. These were short-lived because the run on banks quickly died off.
Well. My post completely backs up what you're saying. The value of gold hasn't changed relative to other things because its utility hasn't been significantly modified.
Inflation happens because people are always trying to get the upper hand, even Farmer Joe, AND because more money is being printed. When more money is printed for no reason, hyperinflation occurs (Think Russia in 1996 or the former Weimar Republic).
And yes, all money is just scraps of paper or chunks of minerals. I never said otherwise. Inflation of prices, if done at the same rate as wage inflation, is nothing more than a changing of the scale. This is why nominal wealth (wealth reported without any regard to adjustment of the price level, i.e. inflation) is meaningless. We look at real GDP (Total output, with inflation "removed") to see wealth. Because gold's NOMINAL worth has changed at the same rate as the nominal value of a suit and a pair of foot coverings, the REAL value of gold hasn't changed in thousands of years.
Inflation was never really an issue before the Federal Reserve was created, but you're falling for a logical fallacy. Most economists would say that inflation increases during times of rapid economic growth because real GDP is changing so rapidly, M1 (money supply) cannot accurately adjust to follow this growth. If you look at real GDP growth during that same time period that inflation increases, you'll see that they correlate very well. And there was deflation through most of the Depression.(GDP growth before 1850 or so, worldwide, was at about.25%, with very little variation between European/North American nations. As industrialization and trade are smoothly systemized, GDP grows because economic growth is more possible and people aren't hording anymore.)
So why, with our GDP even higher than it has ever been, do we have nearly no inflation in the United States? Because we have experience. We know how the economy works and we can control the money supply to cool off inflation. The most famous example is during the late 1970s, where the Carter administration purposely caused a recession to counteract what they forecasted as spiraling inflation.
What's so bad about inflation? Like I said, it makes investment harder (If inflation is 8% per year, an investment needs to return over 8% per year for anyone to invest in it) and universal wage inflation usually takes longer than price inflation. And while it's an effect of rapid economic growth, it's not a good thing. It can blunt that economic growth pretty effectively.
GNP (Gross national product) measures the amount of output produced by all people/firms/capital from a nation, regardless of where that input is located; a Korean car plant in Kentucky counts for Korea's GNP, not the USA's. So, in a sense, the GDP doesn't measure national wealth, but output produced within a particular country.
Nowhere. Inflation doesn't do that. It's just a changing of the scale; there's no wealth going to any particular source. Unchecked inflation is bad for banks because it makes investment more costly, which raises interest rates, which reduces demand for loans (their main source of income). And the Federal Reserve doesn't work like that. The best measure of national wealth is the real GDP.
For what it's worth, Mexicans refer to Americans and Canadians as "norteamericanos". This implies that Mexicans don't consider themselves North Americans.
Heh. I was joking around. I realize fully that business owners tend to be conservative, although I would argue that's to save their own asses. But as for the comment that the liberal movement started in the 60s...the Progressive Era started at the end of the 19th Century and one could argue that if Reconstructionists had gotten their way we'd have a large Social Democratic party like in Scandinavia, Benelux, and so on.
But really, why do YOU guys think that those professions tend to be liberal? Teachers are almost always in unions, and union members vote Democratic, but teachers also tend to be socially liberal; they don't appear to be voting Democratic to get better arbitration is what I mean.
However, I really do think that liberals believe that the world does not have blacks or whites but infinite shades of gray, and I really do think that's a more accurate way of looking at the world. And I think that the easiest way to live according to that belief is to be working in academia. As for journalists, they're on the front lines of what's happening and can readily compare it to other things that have happened in the past, since they were there too. Why they then end up having a liberal intepretation of events is up for discussion.
Have you ever considered that they're liberal because they're professors, not professors because they're liberal?
Conservatives often like to point out that professors, teachers, and journalists lean left. These, of course, are three professions that require a person to be well-informed of current events. So they're alleging that liberals are the ones that are the best informed.
Since the article mentions none of the downsides, we should: trusted chips will eventually be used by software manufacturers to make sure the computer's owner does not do anything with the software which the manufacturer does not want to permit.
So...don't buy them. The only people that will buy these products will be people that don't care in the first place because they don't have anything to be worried about. And as far as I know, Orrin Hatch hasn't come up with some horribly worded bill to force Trusted Computing on everyone. Vote with your wallet.
It isn't his responsibility. To directly contact heads of state, besides as a part of a Senate action, would be completely out of place. Furthermore, once he found out information from these hypothetical conversations, he'd have no means to do anything. The Congress cannot act directly with nations; that's the responsibility of the President. It's in the Constitution (the actual Constitution, not the Bill of Rights).
That's because you're, in most cases, updating the operating system, not just the browser. (Remember that they're bundled in Windows?) So there's no difference.
I'd point out that they didn't even process the story correctly. They assumed the first post (The "letter" from Al Lorentz) was the story, when in fact it wasn't at all - the Yahoo article was, which was basically a watered-down version of a Washington Post article. The entire debate on that, uh, discussion website was focused on a separate story, not posted by Slashdot.
Also, if you're going to cite conservative sources, your best bets are the Weekly Standard or Reason. Free Republic? My God.
Um, yes. I didn't propose a ban on private schools. And both parents AND schools should have high standards. But let's face it. Parents don't care. Or more accurately, they care, but in the same way everyone in America thinks it'd be nice if everyone in the world had clean water and abundant food. They want it to happen, but for whatever reason, don't actually do anything to make it happen. The second parent works so they can get a new family SUV, rather than staying home and making sure that, say, their thirteen-year old son isn't doing lines of coke on the nice new cherrywood table they bought at Pier One.
Parents and schools are faltering at the same time. If we can fix one through legislation, let's do it.
Fair enough, but the vast majority of money used to fund public schools comes not from the federal government, not even the state, but the locality (village, city, or county). That's why it's referenda are often held in order to raise money for the schools. Referenda are necessary because there really isn't that much funding from other sources.
The feds step in when a locality is profoundly horrible at running the local schools. In my opinion, SOME government needs to step in and set high standards, not create yet another useless standardized test.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever met someone from Madison? We'll do it if you'll give us a beer or four.
In that case, order from Gumby's. They're cheap. (I live in Madison.)
For what it's worth, the adjusted minimum wage is the lowest it has been in decades. Labor costs in the USA are higher, but I'd say that's a good thing. By the way, outsourcing is structural unemployment, which is a good thing - or, it would be if we had a support system for laid off workers that gave financial incentives to quickly finding jobs (i.e. wage insurance in addition to unemployment checks) or entering training for a new field.
Either eBay pulled the auctions or they never existed. I just searched for "Halo 2" and nothing fitting the description came up for over $200. So I don't know what the article submitter is blathering about.
I hope it sticks around. It's perhaps more important to watch officials in their dormant stages.
Are you from Madison?
Vote on it?
It looks bad. But his name is off for a reason. In my state, he was thrown off because a large number of people on the petition don't exist.
Social psychology aside, there's nothing wrong from drinking urine, even in its natural form. There is a joint disorder that can make itself apparent via high amounts of uric acid in the bloodstream, but oddly enough, there isn't much evidence showing that drinking urine causes this problem. I know that a former prime minister of India drank his own urine daily and lived to be about 100.
I think I'll stick to diet and exercise though.
Does anyone know how Rutherford was able to get a sheet so thin? The experiment was done over a hundred years ago, and I'm not aware of any technologies that would have allowed for such precision cutting. (Offtopic, probably, but I don't really care. My curiosity is stronger than my karma.)
Oh, and depressions didn't happen as much because the GDP rarely moved, as I stated. However, "panics" (from what I can tell, they're pretty much slight depressions or severe recessions) happened when many firms tried to withdraw from banks at once. Off the top of my head, there was the Panic of 1877, and I believe there were two others in the 1830s. These were short-lived because the run on banks quickly died off.
Inflation happens because people are always trying to get the upper hand, even Farmer Joe, AND because more money is being printed. When more money is printed for no reason, hyperinflation occurs (Think Russia in 1996 or the former Weimar Republic).
And yes, all money is just scraps of paper or chunks of minerals. I never said otherwise. Inflation of prices, if done at the same rate as wage inflation, is nothing more than a changing of the scale. This is why nominal wealth (wealth reported without any regard to adjustment of the price level, i.e. inflation) is meaningless. We look at real GDP (Total output, with inflation "removed") to see wealth. Because gold's NOMINAL worth has changed at the same rate as the nominal value of a suit and a pair of foot coverings, the REAL value of gold hasn't changed in thousands of years.
Inflation was never really an issue before the Federal Reserve was created, but you're falling for a logical fallacy. Most economists would say that inflation increases during times of rapid economic growth because real GDP is changing so rapidly, M1 (money supply) cannot accurately adjust to follow this growth. If you look at real GDP growth during that same time period that inflation increases, you'll see that they correlate very well. And there was deflation through most of the Depression.(GDP growth before 1850 or so, worldwide, was at about .25%, with very little variation between European/North American nations. As industrialization and trade are smoothly systemized, GDP grows because economic growth is more possible and people aren't hording anymore.)
So why, with our GDP even higher than it has ever been, do we have nearly no inflation in the United States? Because we have experience. We know how the economy works and we can control the money supply to cool off inflation. The most famous example is during the late 1970s, where the Carter administration purposely caused a recession to counteract what they forecasted as spiraling inflation.
What's so bad about inflation? Like I said, it makes investment harder (If inflation is 8% per year, an investment needs to return over 8% per year for anyone to invest in it) and universal wage inflation usually takes longer than price inflation. And while it's an effect of rapid economic growth, it's not a good thing. It can blunt that economic growth pretty effectively.
GNP (Gross national product) measures the amount of output produced by all people/firms/capital from a nation, regardless of where that input is located; a Korean car plant in Kentucky counts for Korea's GNP, not the USA's. So, in a sense, the GDP doesn't measure national wealth, but output produced within a particular country.
Nowhere. Inflation doesn't do that. It's just a changing of the scale; there's no wealth going to any particular source. Unchecked inflation is bad for banks because it makes investment more costly, which raises interest rates, which reduces demand for loans (their main source of income). And the Federal Reserve doesn't work like that. The best measure of national wealth is the real GDP.
For what it's worth, Mexicans refer to Americans and Canadians as "norteamericanos". This implies that Mexicans don't consider themselves North Americans.
No man, you don't get it. Thorns are bad. Like Micro$oft! And Window$$$$$$$ LongTHORN. Duh.
But really, why do YOU guys think that those professions tend to be liberal? Teachers are almost always in unions, and union members vote Democratic, but teachers also tend to be socially liberal; they don't appear to be voting Democratic to get better arbitration is what I mean.
However, I really do think that liberals believe that the world does not have blacks or whites but infinite shades of gray, and I really do think that's a more accurate way of looking at the world. And I think that the easiest way to live according to that belief is to be working in academia. As for journalists, they're on the front lines of what's happening and can readily compare it to other things that have happened in the past, since they were there too. Why they then end up having a liberal intepretation of events is up for discussion.
Conservatives often like to point out that professors, teachers, and journalists lean left. These, of course, are three professions that require a person to be well-informed of current events. So they're alleging that liberals are the ones that are the best informed.
Thanks, guys!!
So...don't buy them. The only people that will buy these products will be people that don't care in the first place because they don't have anything to be worried about. And as far as I know, Orrin Hatch hasn't come up with some horribly worded bill to force Trusted Computing on everyone. Vote with your wallet.
It isn't his responsibility. To directly contact heads of state, besides as a part of a Senate action, would be completely out of place. Furthermore, once he found out information from these hypothetical conversations, he'd have no means to do anything. The Congress cannot act directly with nations; that's the responsibility of the President. It's in the Constitution (the actual Constitution, not the Bill of Rights).
That's because you're, in most cases, updating the operating system, not just the browser. (Remember that they're bundled in Windows?) So there's no difference.
Also, if you're going to cite conservative sources, your best bets are the Weekly Standard or Reason. Free Republic? My God.
Parents and schools are faltering at the same time. If we can fix one through legislation, let's do it.
The feds step in when a locality is profoundly horrible at running the local schools. In my opinion, SOME government needs to step in and set high standards, not create yet another useless standardized test.
Great Joker A+ Will Laugh Again!!