I sincerely hope that was a troll and not a genuine opinion.
>> Corporations don't owe us anything
Fine: I own a restaurant and I don't want to serve black people. Or hispanics. Your comments were regarding censorship, so another example would be Google censoring everything about blacks, or Jews, or Tibet,...
That's bullshit !!!
Corporations don't exist in a vacuum. They use public facilities paid for by all of society (roads, police, fire departments, etc). There should always be limits to what they can and can't do. In Australia we have anti-discrimination laws that enumerate the categories against which private companies can not discriminate. I dare say many countries would have similar legislation.
Regarding switching... ironically the opposite is true: you CAN'T always switch services (sometimes they're monopolies) however we CAN switch governments. At worst every few years; more often if we the people get riled up.
Apple intentionally implemented "attitude" in the character of Siri to make it more endearing and friendly, while Google dismisses that idea and tries to make theirs into an emotion-less Star Trek computer
Oh, I don't know about that. They may take a tip from Q's son.
Why would you expect a political party (not the government, a party) to have your socio-economic details?
As the article says, they also capture health information and, as shown in this article from July they also record:
profiles of constituents and their stands on issues such as gay rights, the environment and abortion
In just this post I've detailed that they're collecting information on people's: - health - finances - stance on gay rights - stance on the environment - stance on abortion
I repeat, this is information collected by political parties to help them campaign; to help them win the next election. It is not the government carefully collecting this information to provide a better public service.
This doesn't feel right. I can't quite put my finger on *why* but it just does. Perhaps someone else more eloquent can verbalise the reason.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive.
And may I add some speculation: Many uber-rich have undeclared wealth residing in any number of the world's tax havens. I suspect the above statistics do not take into account those undeclared monies. In other words: for the 99% of us, things are even more shite than the shite we think they are.
Problem is, there is absolutely no "free market" solution to this.
Yes, there is.
As I commented in a post just yesterday most of us have freedom of association. However a substantial number of Slashdotters react to the mention of unions in a way someone might have reacted to the mention of communism during the times of Senator McCarthy.
I'm speaking as someone who has recently been observing the responses of the Victorian nurses' union, NSW teachers' union and NSW police association* in response to their respective state government's plans to screw those workers. Thus far, I'm not aware of any conclusive "win" by any of those unions, but I dare say the absence of those unions would have resulted in the state governments just ignoring individual worker complaints.
* Oh, and let's not forget Qantas versus the pilots' association and engineers' union... during whose strikes the Qantas CEO was awarded a 71% pay rise !
It's about a bill currently being debated in the US Congress which would remove overtime pay for IT workers. It's co-sponsored by Senator Kay Hagan (Dem, NC) whose electorate apparently has a high concentration of companies with large numbers of IT workers.
Relevant quote from the article:
Because most IT workers are not members of a union (and don't seem to want unionize), it isn't clear who's fighting the bill.
In which countries are the government run postal service running well?
Australia: I have no problem with Australia Post. Regular and accurate whether it's rain, hail or shine. (Speaking as a consumer here: I have very little experience with them on business-critical services.)
All our postmen have been / continue to be extremely friendly; if they see you in the front yard when they're delivering they make an effort to actually hand you the mail instead of plonking it in the letter box. The current bloke has even delivered me mail where my name appeared but the address was malformed (I believe it was accurate down to street level -- hence the machine sorters got it right -- but the street number was missing).
You make a good point. But I have raised the topic of the King with Thai nationals residing here in Australia, and even in private conversations they heap praise on him. And I doubt they suspect me to be an agent for the Thai security services.
Not exactly a Nielsen survey, but that's my experience.
The "poor" (the 99%?) vastly outnumber the rich, and could theoretically rewrite society's rules in a heartbeat.
Unfortunately, come election time, most of us believe there are only two parties between which to choose. There are not. There are other options.
Australia's last federal election resulted in a swing away from the two major parties, resulting in a very significant power shift towards the Greens and independents.
When We the People of a democracy speak we have a thunderous voice. Unfortunately we're usually glued to the tv watching football or MasterChef.
I think it's safe to assume a judge would take a very dim view of someone circumventing the spirit of their order. Sure, they may not have explicitly forbidden you from deleting your account, but their intention was for each party to have access to the other's data.
Secondly: doesn't Facebook take 2 weeks to permanently delete an account flagged for deletion? If that's the case, the other party may have sufficient time to regain access to your account and all you've done is anger the judge.
Do you have many people graduating with student loan debt that's the equivalent of $250,000 US?
Thankfully, no. University fees are considerably lower in Australia than they are in the States.
But some of us are old enough to remember a time when university used to be free in Australia. In 1989, fees were introduced at a nominal amount, though it didn't take long for that amount to increase.
In 1989, the Hawke Labor Government set up the Higher Education Contributions Scheme (HECS)... Under the original HECS, an $1,800 fee was charged to all university students, and the Commonwealth paid the balance. A student could defer payment of this HECS amount (in which case it was called a HECS debt) and repay the debt through the tax system, when the student's income reached a certain level...
In 1996, the new Howard Coalition Government, while otherwise retaining the HECS system, created a three-tier HECS fee structure. Fees were charged on the basis of the perceived value of courses. Courses considered to have most likelihood of generating higher income for students in the future (e.g. Law and Medicine) were the most expensive and those least likely to generate higher income (e.g. Nursing and Arts) were the least expensive. At the same time, HECS charges increased by an average of 40%. Universities were permitted to create full-fee places on which they could charge full up-front fees to students who missed out on a HECS place.
I suspect I'm joining you in going overboard. The way in which I'll dispose of sensitive documents is:
1. cross-shred (I also include non-sensitive material, as parent does) 2. dump into large trash bag, mix up the pieces 3. separate into 4 smaller groupings 4. Dispose 2 groupings at work (over 2 weeks) the other 2 groupings with council garbage collection (again, over 2 weeks)
What a sad story; you have my condolences. From your posts you sound like a fine individual, so hats off to your parents for that.
Mate, if you were in Australia, Merck would have been torn to shreds for even *THINKING* of dismissing your dad.
And although university fees are a relatively recent thing in Australia (started about 1990?) and unfortunately getting dearer every year, it sounds like it would have been considerably easier on you over here: paying off HECS
Some things really need to change for the better in the States.
You a democrat? Wouldn't the republicans like to know. You a republican? Wouldn't the democrats like to know.
Some may think you're paranoid, but check-out this article from a major Australian newspaper:
The Age investigation has revealed how Labor is building profiles of constituents based on its communications with MPs, attendance at rallies, membership of groups, letters to newspapers and through polling and surveys. Revealed: How the ALP keeps secret files on voters
With the right incentives, 'there will be a great deal of support' for a waste site near the New Mexico facility, says former Senator Pete Domenici.
If the volunteering originates with the constituents: then good. But if from the politicians: then only as long as the politician suggesting such an arrangement lives just as close to the dump site -- along with their family -- as any other resident in their electorate.
Does American electoral law require that politicians largely reside in the electorate they represent?
Amen brother. I too mute commercials because they are so much louder than the regular programme.
Further, I'm finding that, over the years, the stations are increasingly commencing programmes further and further off the hour / half-hour mark. Why do they do this? Do they think they're preventing us from switching channels when we've finished watching a show on their network?
Also, I'm noticing that the stations are in flagrant disregard of limits on the frequency & length of commercial breaks. You'd be forgiven for thinking there's no government regulator. (ACMA is such a waste of our tax dollars.)
End result --> I find myself increasingly using my PVR even when I could have watched the broadcast live.
Here in Australia, there's been a steady DECREASE in personal income tax rates over the past couple of decades. There's also been a corresponding INCREASE in the cost of health care and education; two areas which, although still heavily subsidised by the government, now see individual citizens shouldering a larger SHARE.
What gauls me is all the poorer people cheering lower taxes when they don't realise they and their families have historically been subsidised by wealthier tax payers.
If you lower income tax rates by 1%, a less-wealthy person saves, what, $400/year? A wealthy individual, however, saves $2,000/year. However the cost of living will now go up -- let's say by $700/year for the poorer person, and $1,500 for the wealthier person. Who's better off now?
I do not wish to enter into debate regarding the merits of wealthier individuals subsidising less wealthy individuals. All I'm saying is that lower tax rates should not be in the interests of everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
I sincerely hope that was a troll and not a genuine opinion.
>> Corporations don't owe us anything
Fine: I own a restaurant and I don't want to serve black people. Or hispanics. ...
Your comments were regarding censorship, so another example would be Google censoring everything about blacks, or Jews, or Tibet,
That's bullshit !!!
Corporations don't exist in a vacuum. They use public facilities paid for by all of society (roads, police, fire departments, etc). There should always be limits to what they can and can't do. In Australia we have anti-discrimination laws that enumerate the categories against which private companies can not discriminate. I dare say many countries would have similar legislation.
Regarding switching ... ironically the opposite is true:
you CAN'T always switch services (sometimes they're monopolies) however we CAN switch governments. At worst every few years; more often if we the people get riled up.
Oh come now, no ships would ever be sunk because of a feud between a nation state and environmentalists.
Err, scrap that.
Oh, I don't know about that. They may take a tip from Q's son.
Why would you expect a political party (not the government, a party) to have your socio-economic details?
As the article says, they also capture health information and, as shown in this article from July they also record:
In just this post I've detailed that they're collecting information on people's:
- health
- finances
- stance on gay rights
- stance on the environment
- stance on abortion
I repeat, this is information collected by political parties to help them campaign; to help them win the next election.
It is not the government carefully collecting this information to provide a better public service.
This doesn't feel right. I can't quite put my finger on *why* but it just does. Perhaps someone else more eloquent can verbalise the reason.
Unfortunately, reality is a little more grim than theory: Wealth inequality in the United States
From the above link:
And may I add some speculation:
Many uber-rich have undeclared wealth residing in any number of the world's tax havens. I suspect the above statistics do not take into account those undeclared monies. In other words: for the 99% of us, things are even more shite than the shite we think they are.
Yes, there is.
As I commented in a post just yesterday most of us have freedom of association. However a substantial number of Slashdotters react to the mention of unions in a way someone might have reacted to the mention of communism during the times of Senator McCarthy.
I'm speaking as someone who has recently been observing the responses of the Victorian nurses' union, NSW teachers' union and NSW police association* in response to their respective state government's plans to screw those workers. Thus far, I'm not aware of any conclusive "win" by any of those unions, but I dare say the absence of those unions would have resulted in the state governments just ignoring individual worker complaints.
* Oh, and let's not forget Qantas versus the pilots' association and engineers' union ... during whose strikes the Qantas CEO was awarded a 71% pay rise !
I just found this timely article over at InfoWorld: No overtime for IT? Occupy the data center!
It's about a bill currently being debated in the US Congress which would remove overtime pay for IT workers. It's co-sponsored by Senator Kay Hagan (Dem, NC) whose electorate apparently has a high concentration of companies with large numbers of IT workers.
Relevant quote from the article:
Well doesn't that suck?
Australia: I have no problem with Australia Post. Regular and accurate whether it's rain, hail or shine. (Speaking as a consumer here: I have very little experience with them on business-critical services.)
All our postmen have been / continue to be extremely friendly; if they see you in the front yard when they're delivering they make an effort to actually hand you the mail instead of plonking it in the letter box. The current bloke has even delivered me mail where my name appeared but the address was malformed (I believe it was accurate down to street level -- hence the machine sorters got it right -- but the street number was missing).
You make a good point. But I have raised the topic of the King with Thai nationals residing here in Australia, and even in private conversations they heap praise on him. And I doubt they suspect me to be an agent for the Thai security services.
Not exactly a Nielsen survey, but that's my experience.
The "poor" (the 99%?) vastly outnumber the rich, and could theoretically rewrite society's rules in a heartbeat.
Unfortunately, come election time, most of us believe there are only two parties between which to choose. There are not. There are other options.
Australia's last federal election resulted in a swing away from the two major parties, resulting in a very significant power shift towards the Greens and independents.
When We the People of a democracy speak we have a thunderous voice. Unfortunately we're usually glued to the tv watching football or MasterChef.
I think it's safe to assume a judge would take a very dim view of someone circumventing the spirit of their order. Sure, they may not have explicitly forbidden you from deleting your account, but their intention was for each party to have access to the other's data.
Secondly: doesn't Facebook take 2 weeks to permanently delete an account flagged for deletion?
If that's the case, the other party may have sufficient time to regain access to your account and all you've done is anger the judge.
Tread carefully.
Thankfully, no. University fees are considerably lower in Australia than they are in the States.
But some of us are old enough to remember a time when university used to be free in Australia. In 1989, fees were introduced at a nominal amount, though it didn't take long for that amount to increase.
From Wikipedia:
I suspect I'm joining you in going overboard. The way in which I'll dispose of sensitive documents is:
1. cross-shred (I also include non-sensitive material, as parent does)
2. dump into large trash bag, mix up the pieces
3. separate into 4 smaller groupings
4. Dispose 2 groupings at work (over 2 weeks) the other 2 groupings with council garbage collection (again, over 2 weeks)
What a sad story; you have my condolences. From your posts you sound like a fine individual, so hats off to your parents for that.
Mate, if you were in Australia, Merck would have been torn to shreds for even *THINKING* of dismissing your dad.
And although university fees are a relatively recent thing in Australia (started about 1990?) and unfortunately getting dearer every year, it sounds like it would have been considerably easier on you over here: paying off HECS
Some things really need to change for the better in the States.
Any teen who photographs their own body should be charged for possessing child pornography.
And any teen who masturbates should be charged with sexually molesting a minor.
Finally, all breast-feeding mothers should be charged with indecent exposure to a minor.
Wow ... sounds too good to be true. Does that include CT scans, MRI's, ultra-sounds?
Some may think you're paranoid, but check-out this article from a major Australian newspaper:
FTFY.
If the volunteering originates with the constituents: then good.
But if from the politicians: then only as long as the politician suggesting such an arrangement lives just as close to the dump site -- along with their family -- as any other resident in their electorate.
Does American electoral law require that politicians largely reside in the electorate they represent?
See a previous post of mine.
... you must first ... invent the universe
Amen brother. I too mute commercials because they are so much louder than the regular programme.
Further, I'm finding that, over the years, the stations are increasingly commencing programmes further and further off the hour / half-hour mark.
Why do they do this? Do they think they're preventing us from switching channels when we've finished watching a show on their network?
Also, I'm noticing that the stations are in flagrant disregard of limits on the frequency & length of commercial breaks. You'd be forgiven for thinking there's no government regulator.
(ACMA is such a waste of our tax dollars.)
End result --> I find myself increasingly using my PVR even when I could have watched the broadcast live.
This shouldn't be true ... but it pretty much is.
Here in Australia, there's been a steady DECREASE in personal income tax rates over the past couple of decades. There's also been a corresponding INCREASE in the cost of health care and education; two areas which, although still heavily subsidised by the government, now see individual citizens shouldering a larger SHARE.
What gauls me is all the poorer people cheering lower taxes when they don't realise they and their families have historically been subsidised by wealthier tax payers.
If you lower income tax rates by 1%, a less-wealthy person saves, what, $400/year? A wealthy individual, however, saves $2,000/year. However the cost of living will now go up -- let's say by $700/year for the poorer person, and $1,500 for the wealthier person. Who's better off now?
I do not wish to enter into debate regarding the merits of wealthier individuals subsidising less wealthy individuals. All I'm saying is that lower tax rates should not be in the interests of everyone.
We still don't have some of the protections afforded to US citizens by their constitution.
Have a truecrypt volume? What would happen to you if you refused a judge's direction to hand over your password?
In Soviet Australia, Senator Conroy censors you !