I'll agree with you on Fox. As for the others, including the BBC (which I also enjoy watching), you're viewing them through your liberal rose colored glasses...they're clearly not impartial. https://www.washingtonpost.com...
You're making an assumption that this new business is simply replacing local business, which simply isn't the case in the vast majority of these situations. When Boeing moved to SC, what local business did they replace? When the automotive industry was in the shitter in Flint, MI, and moved factories to Mexico, were they replaced by local businesses?...no, and they caused a wave of supporting businesses to go bankrupt. When new sports teams move into a city, what local are you suggesting that no new local businesses pop up to support them?
Okay, I'll buy that, while I disagree with the original statement. I've worked for the same company for 36 years, and we've continually provided high availability to our customers. Sure, we could go bankrupt, but would it be of value to our customers to mitigate that risk by utilizing another source? Not likely worth their money IMO.
In fact, I'd argue that the publicity of this will end up increasing the revenue stream. Many of us who've never watched the show, may finally tune in to see what all the fuss is about.
"...raided because they were thought to have evidence in a case against someone else."
Sounds like a valid reason to attempt to confiscate the evidence then. No? Did the group know they had evidence? Did they attempt to turn it over voluntarily?
"German law is continually being changed towards less restrictions for the police, towards police getting more protection against citizens..."
You may know more about it than I do, but I lived there for half a dozen years in the 80-90s, and the police appeared to have pretty broad authority back then.
Your city can offer up incentives because it will create additional jobs and tax revenue from that, along with revenue from supporting industry that pops up. But the city needs to do the math, and determine where the tipping point is. What's the cost/benefit, and do the risk/opportunity analysis. At that tipping point, it's no longer fiscally lucrative to offer up any incentive. And, these tipping points will vary by industry, size company, etc. We see this with sports teams all the time. Many cities offer incentives for them to move there, and take a loss on the team itself. But, they make be making overall gains through added income and corporate taxes elsewhere.
And in a full employment economy, those workers should be able to demand higher wages, and yet, we keep hearing that people aren't making a "living wage". Then, why the fuck don't they go to a different company?.
The problem with your idea of making it illegal is that it will always be legal somewhere, even if it's not in this country (U.S. here). Businesses are always going to do what's financially in their best interest, and if your city, state, or nation isn't competitive, they'll take their ball and go elsewhere...witness Boeing moving to S.C., and many that have moved large portions of their business to places like Ireland (while the EU may nail the Irish over taxes, there will always be other places to go).
When a major industry comes or goes, it doesn't just bring/take with it the direct labor. There's typically all kinds of support industry that goes along with it. When the auto industry left Flint, it was devastated. So, in spite of being a fiscal conservative, I was all in favor of Obama's automotive bailout, because it was much more than for just the auto companies. So, if your community doesn't need all of those jobs, more power to you, but some places do, and they're going to fight for them.
This is very job dependent. And, from my own experience, a bit age dependent.
Jobs requiring a lot of thought are going to be affected much more so than that of a burger flipper.
In my 20-30s, I could sit and code all day, for weeks. Just feed me pizza and caffeine, and I was good to go. Now, as I'm creeping up on 60, pacing myself has become much more important.
IANAL, but I don't believe that Alice ever goes to Carol. The police would have confiscated the vehicle as evidence long before the trial. And, unless Carol was also charged, she might not even have an opportunity to be represented in the case against Bob. Now, Carol can go hire her own attorney, and attempt to get it back, but that's not happening until it's no longer needed as evidence, and likely not at all. Carol may have to make her own case with the prosecutor, police or in civil court.
All of that aside, maybe it's not a good analogy since this is a criminal vs. civil case.
So, let me toss out a car example, and see if it sticks. There's probably a better one, and I may be way off base, but here goes...
Suppose someone steals a vehicle, and then sells it to you. You unknowingly purchased the vehicle in good faith. Along come the cops, and they throw book at the thief. Do you get to keep the car?
In Yelp's case, it's reputation that's being stolen, and Yelp is taking that reputation, and making money from it, and refusing to return it to it's rightful status.
I know that the law, and what I think should be simple common sense often disagree. But to me this whole case seems akin to attacking the manufacturer of walkie-talkies, or cell phones because someone made a comment over them that wasn't appreciated. Only in this case everyone can hear that comment. But so what, it's that person's right to free speech, and in this case Yelp is simply providing the forum for it. Should the person make a slanderous statement, that's between them and the other side. Removal of that statement should only be required once it's been judged as such in a court. So, once I'm king, that's what will happen. Dilly, dilly!
Slashdot Mirror
I'll agree with you on Fox. As for the others, including the BBC (which I also enjoy watching), you're viewing them through your liberal rose colored glasses...they're clearly not impartial.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Don't feed the Russian trolls
Fair enough...I don't have a horse in this race, I was just trying to talk through it to see what made sense.
You're making an assumption that this new business is simply replacing local business, which simply isn't the case in the vast majority of these situations. When Boeing moved to SC, what local business did they replace? When the automotive industry was in the shitter in Flint, MI, and moved factories to Mexico, were they replaced by local businesses?...no, and they caused a wave of supporting businesses to go bankrupt. When new sports teams move into a city, what local are you suggesting that no new local businesses pop up to support them?
Okay, I'll buy that, while I disagree with the original statement. I've worked for the same company for 36 years, and we've continually provided high availability to our customers. Sure, we could go bankrupt, but would it be of value to our customers to mitigate that risk by utilizing another source? Not likely worth their money IMO.
In fact, I'd argue that the publicity of this will end up increasing the revenue stream. Many of us who've never watched the show, may finally tune in to see what all the fuss is about.
Isn't that a bit like being pulled over for a broken turn signal so that the cop can look for evidence of more serious stuff?
"...raided because they were thought to have evidence in a case against someone else."
Sounds like a valid reason to attempt to confiscate the evidence then. No? Did the group know they had evidence? Did they attempt to turn it over voluntarily?
Who in their right mind names a group "Onion Friends", and doesn't expect a police raid...or maybe I got the translation wrong.
"German law is continually being changed towards less restrictions for the police, towards police getting more protection against citizens..."
You may know more about it than I do, but I lived there for half a dozen years in the 80-90s, and the police appeared to have pretty broad authority back then.
Your city can offer up incentives because it will create additional jobs and tax revenue from that, along with revenue from supporting industry that pops up. But the city needs to do the math, and determine where the tipping point is. What's the cost/benefit, and do the risk/opportunity analysis. At that tipping point, it's no longer fiscally lucrative to offer up any incentive. And, these tipping points will vary by industry, size company, etc. We see this with sports teams all the time. Many cities offer incentives for them to move there, and take a loss on the team itself. But, they make be making overall gains through added income and corporate taxes elsewhere.
"The thing is that often large companies will suck the life out of local businesses."
Let me FTFY. The thing is that often large companies will suck the life out of competing local businesses.
They frequently create all kinds of supporting industry, quite the contrary of sucking the life out.
And in a full employment economy, those workers should be able to demand higher wages, and yet, we keep hearing that people aren't making a "living wage". Then, why the fuck don't they go to a different company?.
The problem with your idea of making it illegal is that it will always be legal somewhere, even if it's not in this country (U.S. here). Businesses are always going to do what's financially in their best interest, and if your city, state, or nation isn't competitive, they'll take their ball and go elsewhere...witness Boeing moving to S.C., and many that have moved large portions of their business to places like Ireland (while the EU may nail the Irish over taxes, there will always be other places to go).
When a major industry comes or goes, it doesn't just bring/take with it the direct labor. There's typically all kinds of support industry that goes along with it. When the auto industry left Flint, it was devastated. So, in spite of being a fiscal conservative, I was all in favor of Obama's automotive bailout, because it was much more than for just the auto companies. So, if your community doesn't need all of those jobs, more power to you, but some places do, and they're going to fight for them.
Same here. Crucial's been great.
Nice, a string of Chinese AC trolls.
This is very job dependent. And, from my own experience, a bit age dependent.
Jobs requiring a lot of thought are going to be affected much more so than that of a burger flipper.
In my 20-30s, I could sit and code all day, for weeks. Just feed me pizza and caffeine, and I was good to go. Now, as I'm creeping up on 60, pacing myself has become much more important.
IANAL, but I don't believe precedent is set in lower courts.
sarCASTic
CASTing couch
CASTrated
It's not a conspiracy theory when articles like this refute your study.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1...
IANAL, but I don't believe that Alice ever goes to Carol. The police would have confiscated the vehicle as evidence long before the trial. And, unless Carol was also charged, she might not even have an opportunity to be represented in the case against Bob. Now, Carol can go hire her own attorney, and attempt to get it back, but that's not happening until it's no longer needed as evidence, and likely not at all. Carol may have to make her own case with the prosecutor, police or in civil court.
All of that aside, maybe it's not a good analogy since this is a criminal vs. civil case.
Yeah, I've read that about food regulation here in the U.S. It's really shameful that we can't make use of it.
So, let me toss out a car example, and see if it sticks. There's probably a better one, and I may be way off base, but here goes...
Suppose someone steals a vehicle, and then sells it to you. You unknowingly purchased the vehicle in good faith. Along come the cops, and they throw book at the thief. Do you get to keep the car?
In Yelp's case, it's reputation that's being stolen, and Yelp is taking that reputation, and making money from it, and refusing to return it to it's rightful status.
Was the price the same? Could you stack up the extra patties, and feed some homeless?
Thanks for the informative commentary.
I know that the law, and what I think should be simple common sense often disagree. But to me this whole case seems akin to attacking the manufacturer of walkie-talkies, or cell phones because someone made a comment over them that wasn't appreciated. Only in this case everyone can hear that comment. But so what, it's that person's right to free speech, and in this case Yelp is simply providing the forum for it. Should the person make a slanderous statement, that's between them and the other side. Removal of that statement should only be required once it's been judged as such in a court. So, once I'm king, that's what will happen. Dilly, dilly!