Import tariffs are largely gone thanks to the WTO- but the shipping costs are still there. Mainly applying to refridgerators and cars- heavy objects that contain large amounts of air and are therefore *also* bulky don't fit in well with the many-units-per-shipping-crate system that is in place on so many other items; therefore they cost a *lot* more per unit to ship. Enough to negate the increased cost of labor.
The other side of the same coin is of course the stuff that doesn't ship well- the perishable stuff. Milk especially, but also several different types of human foods. This is getting less all the time- but if we lose our supply of kerosine, it will come back with a vengance as the air shipments cease.
Even simpler than that- the trade relations are all one way. So it's a billion people working for a dictator in his factories with a very low minimum wage, selling to the United States and putting OUR factorie out of business. In return, China lends Bush the money to keep taxes low and have his little war.
Both to me were naked imperialism. Nothing particularly benevolent in the Marshall Plan- the intent was to create new markets for American manufacturers. A bet that we lost.
Absolutely irrelevant. If it was a war to defend capitalism, then we would not have made the Soviets a present out of half of Europe and Asia.
Uh- we didn't. That's the reason NATO was formed and the cold war was fought. Of course, we've had our traitors in that fight (Nixon, Ford, Clinton, and George W. Bush come directly to mind- thier trade relations with China look like a betrayal from my point of view), but the Soviets fought very hard for the land they got at the end of WWII. What was given to them wasn't handed to them on a silver platter- it's what they CAPTURED from the Nazis and others.
I'm not at all sure that WWI was- it seemed to be based on a single assasination followed by a huge domino effect based on a bad tangle of illogical alliances.
But beyond that single example- yes. The only difference today is that our ideology is so tied to our economic system that we actually fight wars *before* the economic damage is done.
Some multinationals actually bother to manufacture locally- mainly to save shipping costs (Toyota is now the #1 car manufacturer in the United States) or due to the perishable nature of the goods (Heinz Ketchup is manufactured all over the world- but for local markets). These are the kind of businesses you want in your community- they bring in new products, provide jobs, and spend money on local supplies. All in all, they bring about 8x their own (initial investment + profits) in economic movement- a very good thing indeed.
Compare this to Wal*Mart, who forces all of their suppliers to move overseas- who ends up just sucking money out of local economies, leaving on the average only $.08 out of every $1 local. Once you understand this, xenophobia becomes a normal reaction.
Uh. You know, the USSR are the ones we didn't fight. And we should have.
Apparently you don't know what the acronym Nazi stood for. You really should find out. Also, fascism by Musolini's definition (choosing companies to become partners of the state, to create legislation that increases barriers to market entry) is anti-capitalist in a very real sense (and in fact, is happening in the United States today). Real capitalists REDUCE barriers to market entry.
And yet- I keep being called a racist for saying that we need an immediate 60% reduction in our oil usage by rationing, and begin treason trials against multinational corporations that manufacture overseas.
The fact of the matter is that the USA did not become the world's only superpower by force -- quite the opposite, it got their by being a benevolent power that other countries trusted.
And just when did we do that? From the Monroe Doctrine on up, we used force. We fought against the Libyan Pirates of Tripoli to protect our shipping lanes, we invaded Mexico (need to do that again, they're getting upity and making noises about taking back the Southwest), we fought Canada to a stalemate (44'40" or fight!). Nothing we've done as a nation has been particularly benevolent.
But I feel, as with many others, that the U.S. is less likely to abuse it due to its economic reliance upon it.
Which is exactly why there exists a small but growing minority in this country who feel that our economic reliance on other nations has become too great, and is becoming a danger to national security.
Strangely, there were references to the contries economy ("in defense of the nation's economy" - i'm paraphrasing).
Why strangely? Haven't the majority of our wars that we've fought in over the years been over either resources (War of 1812, Indian Wars, Spainish-American War, the War with Mexico) or in defense of capitalism (WWII, Korea, Vietnam, both gulf wars)? It actually makes more sense in the mission statement than "sovereign" does, since most of our modern wars are fought with allies for common interests.
Airport is fine to airport networks- but it's interoperability with the other 802.11x standards leaves a good deal to be desired. I'm willing to bet the worse quality experienced with Airport turned on was due to Airport, not the Squeezebox or the computer itself.
Windows CE had this as a part of the recommended practices for programmers. For the most part, you never do bring stuff into RAM if you can help it- you leave it and edit it in storage memory instead of in program memory. Thus, no "Save" function is ever neccessary- because the data is already in storage memory. Save As is neccessary for setting file format and file name- but that's it.
Actually, if anything, Asperger's and Geek lifestyle go so well together that the behaviors that are considered excessive by the DSM are positives for any geek. Sure, it's dibilitating to a *normal* lifestyle- but to a geek lifestyle it just fits. That's why some autistics have formed the theory that they are the next stage of human evolution- Homo Sapiens Informous- The Information Age Man.
Yes- but whose lifestyle isn't debilitating to some extent? I think what the original complaint was that this is being used to label people- and once labeled, one might find it a bit hard to get insured for health care at all, or get that promotion into management, or be able to go to school without having the brain put in slow gear by drugs. This is far more about misdiagnoses and wrongful treatment than it is a critique against the DSM.
I don't see any competant researcher in this arena "attacking" anyone.
It's not the competant researchers that are the problem. Many of us with this have run into the "arrogant NT with power" problem. The type of "normal" person so confident in their own normalcy that any variation in behavior from "normal" by anybody under their power gets referals to psychiatrists and drugs, or negative career assessments. I see it more as a problem with ADHD children than those with Asperger's- and if it wasn't this label, it'd be something else (I personally think we need to label them- I call it the Addams Family Syndrome, after the way that family treated the ouside world- throughout the TV series, they were convinced that the way they lived was normal- it was the rest of the world that was wierd). But yes- this is being used as an attack on those of us with obsessions in a *direct* attempt to reduce our quality of life and make us more manageable by NTs. And the fact that a disportionate number of geeks show some of the behaviors on the list, causes some of the more paranoid-and-in-denial of us to see it as an attack on geekdom itself. Which, given the rounds of cost cutting that have hit our salaries in a negative fashion in the last few years, may well be more than just paranoia and denial.
I just want to register the fact that I disagree with both the poster and the moderation on the post- the political use of such diagnoses is a *very* real concern on both sides of the issue and is not at all "flamebait".
I use a GPS unit to find my way home- takes me about 20 trips to actually remember the route, as opposed to the businesses along the route. I was self-diagnosed, but since I fit 10/10 behaviors, when I needed the designation it was easy to become truly diagnosed.
I disagree with the idea of "debunking" Aspergers- but there is a real need to stop calling it a disease (it's not- it's a slight mental disorder at worst) and institutionalizing people for it (a spouse works as well as an assisted living center would for me). Likewise, I support removing the stereotypical male behaviors from the diagnoses of Asperger's and ADHD- as misdiagnoses are high and boys whose female teachers can't handle basic typical male behavior get drugged in public schools when they really don't need to be.
I do collect them from both sides of any given question, don't I? Actually, this isn't too different from a virus a friend and I wrote in college but never released- it searched text and word processing documents for the word "secret" then e-mailed the ones it found to postmaster@ap.com.
I agree- though it seems far too many teenagers don't understand the question...at which point their parents have to hire somebody like me to remove the garbage.
Few people in the online business community question the idea that marketing software should track user behavior. Lydia Parnes, director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, says it's possible to track people online without being underhanded. The FTC is in favor of online advertising, she explains, "and sometimes tracking makes advertising work better for consumers." Esther Dyson, who has been harshly critical of spyware companies in her influential newsletter, Release 1.0, agrees. "As long as there's disclosure and people are given a choice, I think monitoring users' behavior isn't a problem," she says.
The problem is, the online business community never asked the right question. What they need in that disclosure is "Are you willing to give up half the bandwidth and computer memory you paid for so that we can serve you advertising?"
Just out of curiosity, what actualy make a business evil or unethical?
The focus on profit itself- without that, a business becomes ethical, but it also stops growing, and it's competitors that are less ethical grab market share.
Isn't there some business that actualy gets a product to someone at a reasonable value without doing somethign evil/unethical?
Absolutely- I can think of many examples. But none of these are actually *successfull* businesses- they don't grow and they stay small, living off niches in the economic system that are too unprofitable for the sucessfull businesses to bother with. If the niche becomes serviceable by an unethical big business, then the rules of capitalism state that due to economy of scale, the big business will be able to undercut the small business- and the small business will go out of business, unable to continue making a living for it's shareholders. That's what happens when Wal*Mart comes into a small community- their economies of scale mean they can offer products at a far lower price than the stores on main street can, and thus, the stores on main street go out of business.
Slashdot Mirror
Import tariffs are largely gone thanks to the WTO- but the shipping costs are still there. Mainly applying to refridgerators and cars- heavy objects that contain large amounts of air and are therefore *also* bulky don't fit in well with the many-units-per-shipping-crate system that is in place on so many other items; therefore they cost a *lot* more per unit to ship. Enough to negate the increased cost of labor.
The other side of the same coin is of course the stuff that doesn't ship well- the perishable stuff. Milk especially, but also several different types of human foods. This is getting less all the time- but if we lose our supply of kerosine, it will come back with a vengance as the air shipments cease.
Even simpler than that- the trade relations are all one way. So it's a billion people working for a dictator in his factories with a very low minimum wage, selling to the United States and putting OUR factorie out of business. In return, China lends Bush the money to keep taxes low and have his little war.
Both to me were naked imperialism. Nothing particularly benevolent in the Marshall Plan- the intent was to create new markets for American manufacturers. A bet that we lost.
Absolutely irrelevant. If it was a war to defend capitalism, then we would not have made the Soviets a present out of half of Europe and Asia.
Uh- we didn't. That's the reason NATO was formed and the cold war was fought. Of course, we've had our traitors in that fight (Nixon, Ford, Clinton, and George W. Bush come directly to mind- thier trade relations with China look like a betrayal from my point of view), but the Soviets fought very hard for the land they got at the end of WWII. What was given to them wasn't handed to them on a silver platter- it's what they CAPTURED from the Nazis and others.
I'm not at all sure that WWI was- it seemed to be based on a single assasination followed by a huge domino effect based on a bad tangle of illogical alliances.
But beyond that single example- yes. The only difference today is that our ideology is so tied to our economic system that we actually fight wars *before* the economic damage is done.
Some multinationals actually bother to manufacture locally- mainly to save shipping costs (Toyota is now the #1 car manufacturer in the United States) or due to the perishable nature of the goods (Heinz Ketchup is manufactured all over the world- but for local markets). These are the kind of businesses you want in your community- they bring in new products, provide jobs, and spend money on local supplies. All in all, they bring about 8x their own (initial investment + profits) in economic movement- a very good thing indeed.
Compare this to Wal*Mart, who forces all of their suppliers to move overseas- who ends up just sucking money out of local economies, leaving on the average only $.08 out of every $1 local. Once you understand this, xenophobia becomes a normal reaction.
Maybe not a racist, but certainly a xenophobe.
Which is a rational reaction to a world that has become irrational and a terrorist group known as the WTO directly attacking my career and income.
Uh. You know, the USSR are the ones we didn't fight. And we should have.
Apparently you don't know what the acronym Nazi stood for. You really should find out. Also, fascism by Musolini's definition (choosing companies to become partners of the state, to create legislation that increases barriers to market entry) is anti-capitalist in a very real sense (and in fact, is happening in the United States today). Real capitalists REDUCE barriers to market entry.
And yet- I keep being called a racist for saying that we need an immediate 60% reduction in our oil usage by rationing, and begin treason trials against multinational corporations that manufacture overseas.
The fact of the matter is that the USA did not become the world's only superpower by force -- quite the opposite, it got their by being a benevolent power that other countries trusted.
And just when did we do that? From the Monroe Doctrine on up, we used force. We fought against the Libyan Pirates of Tripoli to protect our shipping lanes, we invaded Mexico (need to do that again, they're getting upity and making noises about taking back the Southwest), we fought Canada to a stalemate (44'40" or fight!). Nothing we've done as a nation has been particularly benevolent.
But I feel, as with many others, that the U.S. is less likely to abuse it due to its economic reliance upon it.
Which is exactly why there exists a small but growing minority in this country who feel that our economic reliance on other nations has become too great, and is becoming a danger to national security.
Strangely, there were references to the contries economy ("in defense of the nation's economy" - i'm paraphrasing).
Why strangely? Haven't the majority of our wars that we've fought in over the years been over either resources (War of 1812, Indian Wars, Spainish-American War, the War with Mexico) or in defense of capitalism (WWII, Korea, Vietnam, both gulf wars)? It actually makes more sense in the mission statement than "sovereign" does, since most of our modern wars are fought with allies for common interests.
Airport is fine to airport networks- but it's interoperability with the other 802.11x standards leaves a good deal to be desired. I'm willing to bet the worse quality experienced with Airport turned on was due to Airport, not the Squeezebox or the computer itself.
Windows CE had this as a part of the recommended practices for programmers. For the most part, you never do bring stuff into RAM if you can help it- you leave it and edit it in storage memory instead of in program memory. Thus, no "Save" function is ever neccessary- because the data is already in storage memory. Save As is neccessary for setting file format and file name- but that's it.
Actually, if anything, Asperger's and Geek lifestyle go so well together that the behaviors that are considered excessive by the DSM are positives for any geek. Sure, it's dibilitating to a *normal* lifestyle- but to a geek lifestyle it just fits. That's why some autistics have formed the theory that they are the next stage of human evolution- Homo Sapiens Informous- The Information Age Man.
Yes- but whose lifestyle isn't debilitating to some extent? I think what the original complaint was that this is being used to label people- and once labeled, one might find it a bit hard to get insured for health care at all, or get that promotion into management, or be able to go to school without having the brain put in slow gear by drugs. This is far more about misdiagnoses and wrongful treatment than it is a critique against the DSM.
I don't see any competant researcher in this arena "attacking" anyone.
It's not the competant researchers that are the problem. Many of us with this have run into the "arrogant NT with power" problem. The type of "normal" person so confident in their own normalcy that any variation in behavior from "normal" by anybody under their power gets referals to psychiatrists and drugs, or negative career assessments. I see it more as a problem with ADHD children than those with Asperger's- and if it wasn't this label, it'd be something else (I personally think we need to label them- I call it the Addams Family Syndrome, after the way that family treated the ouside world- throughout the TV series, they were convinced that the way they lived was normal- it was the rest of the world that was wierd). But yes- this is being used as an attack on those of us with obsessions in a *direct* attempt to reduce our quality of life and make us more manageable by NTs. And the fact that a disportionate number of geeks show some of the behaviors on the list, causes some of the more paranoid-and-in-denial of us to see it as an attack on geekdom itself. Which, given the rounds of cost cutting that have hit our salaries in a negative fashion in the last few years, may well be more than just paranoia and denial.
I just want to register the fact that I disagree with both the poster and the moderation on the post- the political use of such diagnoses is a *very* real concern on both sides of the issue and is not at all "flamebait".
I use a GPS unit to find my way home- takes me about 20 trips to actually remember the route, as opposed to the businesses along the route. I was self-diagnosed, but since I fit 10/10 behaviors, when I needed the designation it was easy to become truly diagnosed.
I disagree with the idea of "debunking" Aspergers- but there is a real need to stop calling it a disease (it's not- it's a slight mental disorder at worst) and institutionalizing people for it (a spouse works as well as an assisted living center would for me). Likewise, I support removing the stereotypical male behaviors from the diagnoses of Asperger's and ADHD- as misdiagnoses are high and boys whose female teachers can't handle basic typical male behavior get drugged in public schools when they really don't need to be.
I do collect them from both sides of any given question, don't I? Actually, this isn't too different from a virus a friend and I wrote in college but never released- it searched text and word processing documents for the word "secret" then e-mailed the ones it found to postmaster@ap.com.
Either one works...hmmm, the first is a *very* interesting thought.
I agree- though it seems far too many teenagers don't understand the question...at which point their parents have to hire somebody like me to remove the garbage.
Few people in the online business community question the idea that marketing software should track user behavior. Lydia Parnes, director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, says it's possible to track people online without being underhanded. The FTC is in favor of online advertising, she explains, "and sometimes tracking makes advertising work better for consumers." Esther Dyson, who has been harshly critical of spyware companies in her influential newsletter, Release 1.0, agrees. "As long as there's disclosure and people are given a choice, I think monitoring users' behavior isn't a problem," she says.
The problem is, the online business community never asked the right question. What they need in that disclosure is "Are you willing to give up half the bandwidth and computer memory you paid for so that we can serve you advertising?"
Me too- but it's interesting that nobody else seems to have noticed that 100% of season 5 scripts is NOT equal to 100% of season 5 scripts -1.
Just out of curiosity, what actualy make a business evil or unethical?
The focus on profit itself- without that, a business becomes ethical, but it also stops growing, and it's competitors that are less ethical grab market share.
Isn't there some business that actualy gets a product to someone at a reasonable value without doing somethign evil/unethical?
Absolutely- I can think of many examples. But none of these are actually *successfull* businesses- they don't grow and they stay small, living off niches in the economic system that are too unprofitable for the sucessfull businesses to bother with. If the niche becomes serviceable by an unethical big business, then the rules of capitalism state that due to economy of scale, the big business will be able to undercut the small business- and the small business will go out of business, unable to continue making a living for it's shareholders. That's what happens when Wal*Mart comes into a small community- their economies of scale mean they can offer products at a far lower price than the stores on main street can, and thus, the stores on main street go out of business.