The crime here is our news outlets have such blatant bias, and very little dedication to journalism and conveying the facts to the masses.
That has always been the case, the various news outlets' claims to the contrary notwithstanding. It doesn't bother me as much as the obvious willingness of people to abandon the First Amendment protections for a news source they don't agree with.
You'd think Slashdotters would be intelligent enough to separate the principle from the actors. Oh, wait. This is Slashdot. My bad.
That has not always been the case. Early on, network news was a public service and paid for by the profits from other programming. Then some bright MBA got the idea that if they made it controversial and sensational then more people would tune in and they could charge more for commercials, just like regular programming. Thus was born the modern news outlet and journalism, where it is no longer about presenting the news, but attracting viewers for advertising revenue. Sex sells, so we had weeks of the Jodi Arias trial. Politics, abortion, gay rights are all hot button issues, so instead of news we have op-ed pieces masquerading as news to inflame the public, but to get them to tune in. Why? Because people respond to that shit and in doing so, the news outlets make a fortune in advertising revenues.
The BBC reports the news because they are government funded. They just report the news good or bad. In the US, however, if profits don't exceed last year, then shareholders are angry which means the board of directors is angry which means CEOs are in trouble, so the "news" has to get viewers to watch however they can. That is why there is a bias in the news. It is basic Marketing 101. Controversy gets viewers ==>Viewers gets advertisers ==> advertisers improve the bottom line ==> improved bottom line make shareholders happy ==>happy shareholders leads to happy Boards ==> happy Boards leads to bonuses for execs and the pattern repeats over and over.
Fox News is unbiased? What are you smoking? Do you mean the network or the the 30 minutes of news they broadcast each day while the rest of their programming is op-ed programming masquerading as news? Only people involved with Fox News believe they are unbiased. The rest of the industry thinks otherwise.
but the news thing, they reported what was classified info which is illegal. no reason for the government not to try to find out who gave it to them
Unless you believe in a free press which means their sources are protected. Otherwise, if the sources fear they will be found out by the government, they won't come forward.
Well scaling is always a problem, but not at the 50 CPU level. In the basement at work we have a machine wtih 30,000 cores and running on that many is definately a scaling problem.
Cores are not getting any faster though (due to power footprint mainly), so scaling is a problem that is going to come to everyone sooner or later.
I agree, I was referring to 50 cores being a problem, which is what the OP was posting about. At 30,000 cores, scaling will be a problem regardless of whether it is based on arm or not!
Except obesity also reduces life expectancy by 6-7 years. link
Therefore, you get 6-7 years of productivity from healthy people, which is worth far more than$31k. Plus, you probably get more productivity for all the other years as well. (Obese people have higher rates of absenteeism and disability claims. link)
Even if that were true, are the higher rates of absenteeism and disability from their being overweight or from an underlying medical condition such as diabetes, which is common in overweight people? Besides, the statistics the AC posted were talking about medical costs, not the cost to an employer. But if you are basing your argument soley on weight and no other factors, then maybe the person with a normal BMI and stage 3 lymphoma is a more productive worker with less absenteeism. It seems counter-intuitive, but like med students, I'm sure wikipedia isn't biased either.
It is just a summary but they link to their more official sources. The core values, as quoted from the blog: The lifetime costs were in Euros: Healthy: 281,000 Obese: 250,000 Smokers: 220,000
So, obesity saves more than 10% of lifetime healthcare cost.
Thank you! I knew that was true of smokers, but wasn't sure about obesity. Despite silly things like objective data (which Slashdotters otherwise rightly insist on) people will still use "fat people raise my healthcare costs" as an excuse for their sanctimony.
People will use whatever excuse they can find as a reason to say that they are better than somebody else. Weight is just an obvious one as is skin color or ethnic background.
It is just a summary but they link to their more official sources. The core values, as quoted from the blog: The lifetime costs were in Euros: Healthy: 281,000 Obese: 250,000 Smokers: 220,000
So, obesity saves more than 10% of lifetime healthcare cost.
You are confusing correlation with causation. While obese people tend to have a shorter life span, it is not directly from the obesity but some other related condition. For instance many diabetics are also obese. The obesity. Diabetics have a shorter life span than non-diabetics, so if an obese diabetic dies before a non-obese non-diabetic, what was the cause of the early death?
In addition, while there is no definition of healthy. Healthy what? BMI? Weight? How about a healthy BMI but stage 3 lymphoma? Then there is overweight versus underweight and one fares better medically if one is somewhat overweight than if they are underweight.
So, unless you are actually comparing similar health conditions along with their weight, the statistics are worthless. Of course, maybe you already knew that and it is why you posted as an AC.
also it's hard to have respect for some obese guy - at least when it comes to respecting them with knowing about them only that they're fat and have a medical problem from being obese.
So let me get this straight. For women, men are supposed to see beyond their breasts and hips to see them as a person not as an object, but you can't do the same thing for an overweight person, male or female? Same thing for people of color or ethnic and religious background. In all of these things we can see the person as an individual but you are saying you cannot do that for an overweight person?
It seems that we should have respect for all people, regardless of whether they are fat or thin or black or white or Muslim or Atheist. Anything less speaks more about us than it does about the other person.
What does the fucking IRS have to do with the US government searching FB posts of the US citizens and bringing those citizens in for questioning and holding them without charge? What does the IRS have to do with warrantless wiretaps of US citizens all under the guise of suspected terrorists? What does the IRS have to do with profiling and selecting people for extra searches to travel for nothing other than they have a foreign sounding name or they dress differently or they practice a different religion? Maybe you don't mind the interpretation of the Justice Department that electronic communications do not fall under the various privacy acts, but a lot of other people do.
Get a clue, an ex-marine was caught in a government program that was targeting ex military and others, but primarlily ex military to make sure they weren't going to go wacko. You don't think they don't also target other groups? This isn't some Obama thing, it started long before him. Hell, even with the IRS, it was Bush who appointed the director. But again, this isn't about the IRS. This is about a government that has seized upon peoples fears to erode their basic freedoms. Hell, even abortion has nothing to do with a woman's right to control her body, at least not according to the supreme court, but is about privacy between a woman and her doctor.
Without the right to privacy, then there is no real right to free speech or due process or any of the others. Because they are all predicated on privacy (speech is not free if it has to be cleared by the govenrment. Due process is not actually due process if it only applies when the government chooses to apply it).
Post 9/11 the government no longer views privacy a right of its citizens, or at least not a right worth respecting. As that most basic right goes, so do the rest. Plain and simple and if you can't see that you are either a moron or too young an naive to remember what freedoms we had prior to 9/11.
In the US, people do have the right to privacy and the right to due process.
Raub makes crazy posts The cops come for him. A psychotherapist interviews Raub in county jail and decides he's bonkers The psychotherapist (employed by the county) petitions Judge #1 for a temporary psychiatric hold The judge grants petition #1 Raub goes to a local hospital for 4 days Two social workers (employed by the county) evaluate Raub and petition for a civil commitment Judge #2 grants petition #2 and Raub is shipped off to another hospital.
7 days after the initial arrest, Raub's lawyer gets a hearing in front of a third Judge Judge #3 declares that petition #2 is "devoid of factual allegations" and sets Raub free. Does that sound like due process or the workings of an authoritarian state?
Due process doesn't prevent injustice, it's just supposed to correct it after the fact. If you want to prevent injustice, you'll have to create more regulations & oversight for the police.
You left out the part that the only reason the cops came for him is because of a government program that is targeting ex-military monitoring everything they are posting on-line "just in case." Regardless of whether or not he is bonkers or should have been picked up, the ends do not justify the means. He is a US citizen and is afforded the same protections under the constitution as anybody else. If the government were doing this based on ethnic background or sexual preference, there would be hell to pay. However, because they are doing this based on one's ties to a group, in this case, former military, it is okay? That should be chilling to everybody. What other group is on the government's shit list?
It seems that McCarthyism is alive and well in the US.
If you read the linked article, it sounds like he was detained for making threats towards people in the federal government. Given his training, these threats have to be taken seriously.
That is besides the point. The Boston Marathon bombers didn't have his training and were quite successful at causing great harm. Are you advocating that the government should be monitoring everybody's FB posts, email, postal mail, etc. looking for potential crack pots?
In the US, people do have the right to privacy and the right to due process. The man in question was not a marine, but an ex-marine. Does that mean all ex-military have forfeited those rights? What about all government employees? Where do you draw the line?
Post 9/11 people have willingly given up basic rights that the country was founded on that people fought and died to protect, all out of fear and others have capitalized on it. The Soviet Union had the KGB to "protect" it's citizens. Nazi Germany had the Gestapo to "protect" their citizens. And the US has homeland security. Of course, what are they protecting their citizens against? That's simple, anybody who thinks differently than the government leaders want the populace to think.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not some right wing conspiracy theorist. I'm pretty much as liberal as they come. But, it is a common tactic of totalitarian governments to use fear to get people to give up their rights. Hell, even in Florida, they just started their own brownshirt program where citizens are encouraged to report suspected terrorist activity to a special law inforcement group (as if somehow, they couldn't do that before).
On this Memorial Day weekend, as we honor the dead, I'll be thinking of my family members who have fought for our freedom in every war in the US has been involved with including the Revolutionary War. I will thank them for their sacrifice and feel sorrow for what naught it has become.
Dany Adams: It's interesting, in humans if you were six years old and you cut the tip of your finger off it would grow back, as long as the doctors do not do the normal thing, which is to pull some skin and cover the wound to prevent infection, which is a very good thing to do, but if you don't do that and you allow it to stay open, it will in fact regenerate if you are six years old.
That's assuming the open wound doesn't become septic and you die from the infection, of course.
What you are proposing is a total upheavel in the economic system. Do you really believe that the wealthy will give up the power that their wealth has to live in a utopian society where everybody gets what everybody needs? Plus if "jobs" all end up being about maintaining social order and stability, which pretty much means government jobs, where will the government get funds to provide those services? Nobody is working, there is nobody to tax.
But that is besides the point. Surely, somebody, somewhere is going to have to do some work. And those workers are either going to demand wages (or goods and services) or be treated as slaves. Either prospect does not look favorable.
On a state level, consider Connecticut. In 1960, a 3% sales tax and no income tax. Now, 6.25% sales tax and 6.5% income tax; a net quadrupling of taxation.
It is simply wonderful that you picked 1960 to make your point. Did you know that in 1960 the total tax burden on American citizens was close to the highest it ever was in the country (combining federal, state, local, property, fuel, etc.)? And yet, it was also one of the most prosperous times in the country for real growth. Kind of shoots a hole in the whole taxes are crippling the economy argument. So, yeah, lets go back to the 1960 tax structure. Hell, lets go back to the last time we had a balanced budget, which would be under Clinton. Taxes under Clinton were quite a bit higher than they are now, we had a balanced budget and again we had astronomical growth.
The moral of the story is that taxes are not by their nature bad. Some of the most prosperous times in the country were times of highest tax burdens.
His view is fine if you are rich and famous, but the other 99% of us don't get the false sympathy poured out on us like they do. Thousands of women have had double mastectomies because they have the BRCA gene but none of them are fawned over like Angelina Jolie. Likewise, for most of us we wouldn't be afforded the medical treatment that Larry Page received nor would we been able to keep our jobs if we couldn't talk, assuming we had jobs that required public speaking. The people in the top 1% need to realize that the world doesn't work and respond for the rest of us like it does for them. Magic Johnson announces he has HIV the world reaches out to him. The guy in the next cubicle announces it, he is ostracized. Snookie has a baby, everybody fawns over her. The girl at the check-out at 7-11, she's accused of being a harlot and wanting a handout from taxpayers.
Maybe before another celebrity or 1%er tells the rest of the world how to live, they should give up all that they have and try living like the rest of the world.
The group that saw the greatest amount of growth was government. They went from ~20% of GDP to greater than 40. That is why your pay is stagnating, and why there are so few jobs. Governments don't create goods that you can buy. They aren't PRODUCTIVE. Cut the government back down to 20% of GDP, and the purchasing power that was previously being distributed to people who didn't produce anything will largely find its way back to productive pursuits, and we will start to grow again.
That statistic is misleading as included in the government workforce are police, fire, teachers and numerous other groups that prior to 1960 where not classified as government workers.
But even taking those into account, the number of government workers have increased, but measuring against GDP is meaningless. But the real measure, the number of government workers compared to the total population is smaller today (after adjusting for professions that were not previously included) than it was in 1960. It would make sense that as the number of citizens increases, the number of workers to protect (police and fire), educate (teachers), heal (public health), construct (more people mean more roads and bridges) and even adminster (more people mean more clerks at the DMV are needed).
The number of workers the government has is not a problem anymore than the number of workers Microsoft has. It all depends what those workers are doing.
I predict we'll get in a lot more trouble, but I for one like to believe I will get some time to do all the fun projects I have to put off now. Maybe things that now seem impractical or prohibitively expensive will get done. The egyptians showed us a large amount of cheap labor can produce wonders that still boggle the mind, what about large amounts of educate, dedicated labor?
If there are no jobs, then why educate? Plus, if there are no jobs, how will one pay for an education, let alone food, housing, etc.?
People became more productive due to technology. Now you are able to produce enough for you and your family in 40 hours / week. Before this technology advancement, you needed to work 60-80 hours / week in order to produce enough.
WTF are you talking about back in the first half of the last century, unless you worked on the farm, you were able to produce enough for you and your family in a 40 hour week with just one adult working and that was with an average of 4 kids. Today, it takes both parents working with an average of 1.4 kids.
Technology may make us more efficient, but it has nothing to do with the economics of providing for a family.
Jobs are not a scarce resource, labor is. There is always enough jobs for everyone that wants one and then some, even if it means being self employed. The only reason there is unemployment at all, is because of bad laws.
It is true that there are always enough jobs for anybody who wants one. What is lacking are jobs that one can support a family on for everybody who needs one. Bad laws may influence unemployment, but more likely shareholder greed is the real culprit. In the US alone, the stock market has hit record highs, businesses are reporting record profits, dividends and corporate bonuses are up. Everything is great except that nobody is hiring. That has nothing to do with bad laws and everything to do with greed.
Using robots will be just one more way to replace labor and further increase profits. The problem is that it only works in the short term because it ins't sustainable. If there is no longer a place for labor in the future workforce, then how exactly are people supposed ot earn wages to purchase goods and services that will be provided by the robots? If people aren't purchasing goods and services, then where will the future profits come from?
Businesses should learn from Henry Ford. He paid his workers more than other factories so they could afford to purchase the vehicles they were building. The extra he paid out in wages created demand for the product and was returned in profits. It was a win/win scenario. We should learn from the past.
They literally say it is a free update in the very first sentence of the article, which is cited in the second sentence of the summary (which says the same thing).
The upcoming Windows Blue update, now officially known as Windows 8.1, will be delivered as a free update through the operating system's app store, Microsoft confirmed today.
Per the announcement by Tami Reller, it will be a free update for "consumers" However in the next statement they talk about making Windows 8.1 the best experience for both consumers and business users alike. There is no mention of it being a free update for business users and it is highly unlikely that corporate America is going to have everybody log in to the Windows app store to upgrade.
Windows 8 had to be released when it was so they could push their tablets and phones. It wasn't ready for the desktop, but could be made to work. Now, it appears it is ready for the desktop. Time will tell.
They don't actually say it is a free update to Windows 8. They say that people who buy a pc with Windows 8 installed between now and when 8.1 is released will be able to upgrade for free. What is omitted is what if you already purchased a PC, say last year with WIndows 8?
Slashdot Mirror
That has always been the case, the various news outlets' claims to the contrary notwithstanding. It doesn't bother me as much as the obvious willingness of people to abandon the First Amendment protections for a news source they don't agree with.
You'd think Slashdotters would be intelligent enough to separate the principle from the actors. Oh, wait. This is Slashdot. My bad.
That has not always been the case. Early on, network news was a public service and paid for by the profits from other programming. Then some bright MBA got the idea that if they made it controversial and sensational then more people would tune in and they could charge more for commercials, just like regular programming. Thus was born the modern news outlet and journalism, where it is no longer about presenting the news, but attracting viewers for advertising revenue. Sex sells, so we had weeks of the Jodi Arias trial. Politics, abortion, gay rights are all hot button issues, so instead of news we have op-ed pieces masquerading as news to inflame the public, but to get them to tune in. Why? Because people respond to that shit and in doing so, the news outlets make a fortune in advertising revenues.
The BBC reports the news because they are government funded. They just report the news good or bad. In the US, however, if profits don't exceed last year, then shareholders are angry which means the board of directors is angry which means CEOs are in trouble, so the "news" has to get viewers to watch however they can. That is why there is a bias in the news. It is basic Marketing 101. Controversy gets viewers ==>Viewers gets advertisers ==> advertisers improve the bottom line ==> improved bottom line make shareholders happy ==>happy shareholders leads to happy Boards ==> happy Boards leads to bonuses for execs and the pattern repeats over and over.
Fox News is unbiased? What are you smoking? Do you mean the network or the the 30 minutes of news they broadcast each day while the rest of their programming is op-ed programming masquerading as news? Only people involved with Fox News believe they are unbiased. The rest of the industry thinks otherwise.
IRS is one thing
but the news thing, they reported what was classified info which is illegal. no reason for the government not to try to find out who gave it to them
Unless you believe in a free press which means their sources are protected. Otherwise, if the sources fear they will be found out by the government, they won't come forward.
Well scaling is always a problem, but not at the 50 CPU level. In the basement at work we have a machine wtih 30,000 cores and running on that many is definately a scaling problem.
Cores are not getting any faster though (due to power footprint mainly), so scaling is a problem that is going to come to everyone sooner or later.
I agree, I was referring to 50 cores being a problem, which is what the OP was posting about. At 30,000 cores, scaling will be a problem regardless of whether it is based on arm or not!
50 arm cpu's eh, problem comes to fact of something that can scale to that many cpu's.
Well the article is about arms being used in supercomputers, so scalability is probably not going to be a problem.
Except obesity also reduces life expectancy by 6-7 years. link
Therefore, you get 6-7 years of productivity from healthy people, which is worth far more than$31k. Plus, you probably get more productivity for all the other years as well. (Obese people have higher rates of absenteeism and disability claims. link)
Even if that were true, are the higher rates of absenteeism and disability from their being overweight or from an underlying medical condition such as diabetes, which is common in overweight people? Besides, the statistics the AC posted were talking about medical costs, not the cost to an employer. But if you are basing your argument soley on weight and no other factors, then maybe the person with a normal BMI and stage 3 lymphoma is a more productive worker with less absenteeism. It seems counter-intuitive, but like med students, I'm sure wikipedia isn't biased either.
Citation: http://daveatherton.wordpress.com/2012/03/17/the-true-costs-of-treating-smokers-the-obese-and-the-healthy/
It is just a summary but they link to their more official sources. The core values, as quoted from the blog:
The lifetime costs were in Euros:
Healthy: 281,000
Obese: 250,000
Smokers: 220,000
So, obesity saves more than 10% of lifetime healthcare cost.
Thank you! I knew that was true of smokers, but wasn't sure about obesity. Despite silly things like objective data (which Slashdotters otherwise rightly insist on) people will still use "fat people raise my healthcare costs" as an excuse for their sanctimony.
People will use whatever excuse they can find as a reason to say that they are better than somebody else. Weight is just an obvious one as is skin color or ethnic background.
Citation: http://daveatherton.wordpress.com/2012/03/17/the-true-costs-of-treating-smokers-the-obese-and-the-healthy/
It is just a summary but they link to their more official sources. The core values, as quoted from the blog:
The lifetime costs were in Euros:
Healthy: 281,000
Obese: 250,000
Smokers: 220,000
So, obesity saves more than 10% of lifetime healthcare cost.
You are confusing correlation with causation. While obese people tend to have a shorter life span, it is not directly from the obesity but some other related condition. For instance many diabetics are also obese. The obesity. Diabetics have a shorter life span than non-diabetics, so if an obese diabetic dies before a non-obese non-diabetic, what was the cause of the early death?
In addition, while there is no definition of healthy. Healthy what? BMI? Weight? How about a healthy BMI but stage 3 lymphoma? Then there is overweight versus underweight and one fares better medically if one is somewhat overweight than if they are underweight.
So, unless you are actually comparing similar health conditions along with their weight, the statistics are worthless. Of course, maybe you already knew that and it is why you posted as an AC.
also it's hard to have respect for some obese guy - at least when it comes to respecting them with knowing about them only that they're fat and have a medical problem from being obese.
So let me get this straight. For women, men are supposed to see beyond their breasts and hips to see them as a person not as an object, but you can't do the same thing for an overweight person, male or female? Same thing for people of color or ethnic and religious background. In all of these things we can see the person as an individual but you are saying you cannot do that for an overweight person?
It seems that we should have respect for all people, regardless of whether they are fat or thin or black or white or Muslim or Atheist. Anything less speaks more about us than it does about the other person.
What does the fucking IRS have to do with the US government searching FB posts of the US citizens and bringing those citizens in for questioning and holding them without charge? What does the IRS have to do with warrantless wiretaps of US citizens all under the guise of suspected terrorists? What does the IRS have to do with profiling and selecting people for extra searches to travel for nothing other than they have a foreign sounding name or they dress differently or they practice a different religion? Maybe you don't mind the interpretation of the Justice Department that electronic communications do not fall under the various privacy acts, but a lot of other people do.
Get a clue, an ex-marine was caught in a government program that was targeting ex military and others, but primarlily ex military to make sure they weren't going to go wacko. You don't think they don't also target other groups? This isn't some Obama thing, it started long before him. Hell, even with the IRS, it was Bush who appointed the director. But again, this isn't about the IRS. This is about a government that has seized upon peoples fears to erode their basic freedoms. Hell, even abortion has nothing to do with a woman's right to control her body, at least not according to the supreme court, but is about privacy between a woman and her doctor.
Without the right to privacy, then there is no real right to free speech or due process or any of the others. Because they are all predicated on privacy (speech is not free if it has to be cleared by the govenrment. Due process is not actually due process if it only applies when the government chooses to apply it).
Post 9/11 the government no longer views privacy a right of its citizens, or at least not a right worth respecting. As that most basic right goes, so do the rest. Plain and simple and if you can't see that you are either a moron or too young an naive to remember what freedoms we had prior to 9/11.
In the US, people do have the right to privacy and the right to due process.
Raub makes crazy posts
The cops come for him.
A psychotherapist interviews Raub in county jail and decides he's bonkers
The psychotherapist (employed by the county) petitions Judge #1 for a temporary psychiatric hold
The judge grants petition #1
Raub goes to a local hospital for 4 days
Two social workers (employed by the county) evaluate Raub and petition for a civil commitment
Judge #2 grants petition #2 and Raub is shipped off to another hospital.
7 days after the initial arrest, Raub's lawyer gets a hearing in front of a third Judge
Judge #3 declares that petition #2 is "devoid of factual allegations" and sets Raub free.
Does that sound like due process or the workings of an authoritarian state?
Due process doesn't prevent injustice, it's just supposed to correct it after the fact.
If you want to prevent injustice, you'll have to create more regulations & oversight for the police.
You left out the part that the only reason the cops came for him is because of a government program that is targeting ex-military monitoring everything they are posting on-line "just in case." Regardless of whether or not he is bonkers or should have been picked up, the ends do not justify the means. He is a US citizen and is afforded the same protections under the constitution as anybody else. If the government were doing this based on ethnic background or sexual preference, there would be hell to pay. However, because they are doing this based on one's ties to a group, in this case, former military, it is okay? That should be chilling to everybody. What other group is on the government's shit list?
It seems that McCarthyism is alive and well in the US.
If you read the linked article, it sounds like he was detained for making threats towards people in the federal government. Given his training, these threats have to be taken seriously.
That is besides the point. The Boston Marathon bombers didn't have his training and were quite successful at causing great harm. Are you advocating that the government should be monitoring everybody's FB posts, email, postal mail, etc. looking for potential crack pots?
In the US, people do have the right to privacy and the right to due process. The man in question was not a marine, but an ex-marine. Does that mean all ex-military have forfeited those rights? What about all government employees? Where do you draw the line?
Post 9/11 people have willingly given up basic rights that the country was founded on that people fought and died to protect, all out of fear and others have capitalized on it. The Soviet Union had the KGB to "protect" it's citizens. Nazi Germany had the Gestapo to "protect" their citizens. And the US has homeland security. Of course, what are they protecting their citizens against? That's simple, anybody who thinks differently than the government leaders want the populace to think.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not some right wing conspiracy theorist. I'm pretty much as liberal as they come. But, it is a common tactic of totalitarian governments to use fear to get people to give up their rights. Hell, even in Florida, they just started their own brownshirt program where citizens are encouraged to report suspected terrorist activity to a special law inforcement group (as if somehow, they couldn't do that before).
On this Memorial Day weekend, as we honor the dead, I'll be thinking of my family members who have fought for our freedom in every war in the US has been involved with including the Revolutionary War. I will thank them for their sacrifice and feel sorrow for what naught it has become.
We have ways of preventing the infection.
Yes, we do. First, one of the steps being that you wrap the finger in a bandage to keep bacteria away from it.
No.
But if you are under the age of 6, not wrapping a finger in a bandage means it will probably grow back. From www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/4632692 (click on Transcript):
That's assuming the open wound doesn't become septic and you die from the infection, of course.
What you are proposing is a total upheavel in the economic system. Do you really believe that the wealthy will give up the power that their wealth has to live in a utopian society where everybody gets what everybody needs? Plus if "jobs" all end up being about maintaining social order and stability, which pretty much means government jobs, where will the government get funds to provide those services? Nobody is working, there is nobody to tax.
But that is besides the point. Surely, somebody, somewhere is going to have to do some work. And those workers are either going to demand wages (or goods and services) or be treated as slaves. Either prospect does not look favorable.
If human labor is trivialized, who NEEDS a job?
nobody will need a job. Unless they want to eat, that is. Or will food production and housing become free in the future?
On a state level, consider Connecticut. In 1960, a 3% sales tax and no income tax. Now, 6.25% sales tax and 6.5% income tax; a net quadrupling of taxation.
It is simply wonderful that you picked 1960 to make your point. Did you know that in 1960 the total tax burden on American citizens was close to the highest it ever was in the country (combining federal, state, local, property, fuel, etc.)? And yet, it was also one of the most prosperous times in the country for real growth. Kind of shoots a hole in the whole taxes are crippling the economy argument. So, yeah, lets go back to the 1960 tax structure. Hell, lets go back to the last time we had a balanced budget, which would be under Clinton. Taxes under Clinton were quite a bit higher than they are now, we had a balanced budget and again we had astronomical growth.
The moral of the story is that taxes are not by their nature bad. Some of the most prosperous times in the country were times of highest tax burdens.
Didn't Germany have a similar program to this, where a citizen could report suspicious behavior on their fellow citizens?
His view is fine if you are rich and famous, but the other 99% of us don't get the false sympathy poured out on us like they do. Thousands of women have had double mastectomies because they have the BRCA gene but none of them are fawned over like Angelina Jolie. Likewise, for most of us we wouldn't be afforded the medical treatment that Larry Page received nor would we been able to keep our jobs if we couldn't talk, assuming we had jobs that required public speaking. The people in the top 1% need to realize that the world doesn't work and respond for the rest of us like it does for them. Magic Johnson announces he has HIV the world reaches out to him. The guy in the next cubicle announces it, he is ostracized. Snookie has a baby, everybody fawns over her. The girl at the check-out at 7-11, she's accused of being a harlot and wanting a handout from taxpayers.
Maybe before another celebrity or 1%er tells the rest of the world how to live, they should give up all that they have and try living like the rest of the world.
The group that saw the greatest amount of growth was government. They went from ~20% of GDP to greater than 40. That is why your pay is stagnating, and why there are so few jobs. Governments don't create goods that you can buy. They aren't PRODUCTIVE. Cut the government back down to 20% of GDP, and the purchasing power that was previously being distributed to people who didn't produce anything will largely find its way back to productive pursuits, and we will start to grow again.
That statistic is misleading as included in the government workforce are police, fire, teachers and numerous other groups that prior to 1960 where not classified as government workers.
But even taking those into account, the number of government workers have increased, but measuring against GDP is meaningless. But the real measure, the number of government workers compared to the total population is smaller today (after adjusting for professions that were not previously included) than it was in 1960. It would make sense that as the number of citizens increases, the number of workers to protect (police and fire), educate (teachers), heal (public health), construct (more people mean more roads and bridges) and even adminster (more people mean more clerks at the DMV are needed).
The number of workers the government has is not a problem anymore than the number of workers Microsoft has. It all depends what those workers are doing.
I predict we'll get in a lot more trouble, but I for one like to believe I will get some time to do all the fun projects I have to put off now. Maybe things that now seem impractical or prohibitively expensive will get done. The egyptians showed us a large amount of cheap labor can produce wonders that still boggle the mind, what about large amounts of educate, dedicated labor?
If there are no jobs, then why educate? Plus, if there are no jobs, how will one pay for an education, let alone food, housing, etc.?
People became more productive due to technology. Now you are able to produce enough for you and your family in 40 hours / week. Before this technology advancement, you needed to work 60-80 hours / week in order to produce enough.
WTF are you talking about back in the first half of the last century, unless you worked on the farm, you were able to produce enough for you and your family in a 40 hour week with just one adult working and that was with an average of 4 kids. Today, it takes both parents working with an average of 1.4 kids.
Technology may make us more efficient, but it has nothing to do with the economics of providing for a family.
Jobs are not a scarce resource, labor is. There is always enough jobs for everyone that wants one and then some, even if it means being self employed. The only reason there is unemployment at all, is because of bad laws.
It is true that there are always enough jobs for anybody who wants one. What is lacking are jobs that one can support a family on for everybody who needs one. Bad laws may influence unemployment, but more likely shareholder greed is the real culprit. In the US alone, the stock market has hit record highs, businesses are reporting record profits, dividends and corporate bonuses are up. Everything is great except that nobody is hiring. That has nothing to do with bad laws and everything to do with greed.
Using robots will be just one more way to replace labor and further increase profits. The problem is that it only works in the short term because it ins't sustainable. If there is no longer a place for labor in the future workforce, then how exactly are people supposed ot earn wages to purchase goods and services that will be provided by the robots? If people aren't purchasing goods and services, then where will the future profits come from?
Businesses should learn from Henry Ford. He paid his workers more than other factories so they could afford to purchase the vehicles they were building. The extra he paid out in wages created demand for the product and was returned in profits. It was a win/win scenario. We should learn from the past.
They literally say it is a free update in the very first sentence of the article, which is cited in the second sentence of the summary (which says the same thing).
The upcoming Windows Blue update, now officially known as Windows 8.1, will be delivered as a free update through the operating system's app store, Microsoft confirmed today.
Per the announcement by Tami Reller, it will be a free update for "consumers" However in the next statement they talk about making Windows 8.1 the best experience for both consumers and business users alike. There is no mention of it being a free update for business users and it is highly unlikely that corporate America is going to have everybody log in to the Windows app store to upgrade.
However, time will tell.
Windows 8 had to be released when it was so they could push their tablets and phones. It wasn't ready for the desktop, but could be made to work. Now, it appears it is ready for the desktop. Time will tell.
They don't actually say it is a free update to Windows 8. They say that people who buy a pc with Windows 8 installed between now and when 8.1 is released will be able to upgrade for free. What is omitted is what if you already purchased a PC, say last year with WIndows 8?