Just to clarify how the law works on this one, in most states (probably all, but there are 50 of them so you never know if there are variations) when you hop behind the wheel and start driving any car (whether you own it or not) you are responsible for the operation of that car, including if anything is wrong with it that causes an accident or any sort of moving violation, such as a malfunctioning safety device (and the speedometer is a safety device.)
Now that doesn't stop you from suing a manufacturer, mechanic, or other responsible party if something has gone wrong with the car that wasn't your fault and caused any damages. But, any damages (even just a ticket) are your responsibility first, and if the cause was from a manufacturer or mechanic, it's then on you to recover your losses from them. In other words, if your brakes fail due to manufacturer defect, you can't just tell the guy you rear ended to go collect from your car manufacturer. He goes after you, and whatever he collects from you, you then have to collect from the manufacturer.
You also still end up with a ticket and a mark on your driving record, because again you assumed responsibility for anything wrong with the car by driving it.
I suspect there was more to it than "they belonged to the company". Likely the company had no provisions to monitor or audit the software being used, or perhaps was even complicit in its use. If the company did not know about it, it is unlikely they would have been charged.
It was a civil suit, there is no "charge", rather it is a "lawsuit". Likewise, there is no law or anything requiring an audit, nor is it written anywhere that you need one. The company shouldn't need to go around shaking down all of it's employees - the work environment is much better that way. My boss would let me do pretty much whatever I wanted to so long as I got the job done without breaking the ethics code or any laws. And, it works great. Lawsuits like the one the company saw were rare. Of course, they're also pretty selective about who they hire as well, similar to Google.
You DO know what "piracy" is, yes? It is a legal term meaning to make copies (and usually selling) for profit. Who in the company was making copies for profit? Did management know about it?
You don't have to profit from it for it to be considered piracy, you just have to infringe on their copyrights. The more I read your posts the more it seems like you're just making shit up as you go along - I've been googling for the last two minutes and haven't found a single source that defines piracy as requiring you to make a profit - simply using unauthorized copies is enough.
Holy shit, dude. The term BYOD is referring to OFFICE WORK.
Woah, so because you're in this magical "office" means you shouldn't have to follow the same trends that everybody else does? They should probably post a sign saying that somewhere, or amend it into the constitution.
Of course not. But if they don't, they can hire somebody else. I am a programmer. If they want me to work in the office, but supply my own "tools", they can pay me for the use of them or find somebody else.
If this is the attitude that most programmers today have, then it's no wonder we have so many of them who can't find a job after they graduate. As I stated earlier, 60% of the workforce is employed by small businesses. These small businesses don't have the capital to go out and buy this kind of stuff for their employees, so it would make sense.
As a programmer, I'd sort of hope that you'd at least have a passion for it, which means you'd probably already own your own devices already. This is the same expectation the auto industry already has for mechanics. It therefore seems absurd for you to demand that your employer pay you for it.
Usually when programmers are involved in startups, using their own existing equipment is just a flat out given because they're already on a very tight budget since they don't even have any revenue stream yet (nearly all of the very wealthy programmers out there start out doing exactly this in fact. Bill Gates, John Carmack, Steve Wozniak, Mark Zuckerberg...) These guys also often work in an office, albeit generally a small one, with a little fridge for pizza. Of course, they also usually have a vested interest and indeed a passion in seeing the company succeed rather than just seeing the company as their source of a paycheck. You're no doubt the later though, with an added strong sense of entitlement (you even admit this subliminally,) so it wouldn't surprise me that somebody like you would never have any entrepreneurial sense at all either.
Not even. As I mentioned before: if he won't pay for the cost of using it, then he can hire somebody else. And good luck to him.
Except they don't. Where is this mysterious foreign worker that works for less money under the H-1B program? I've never met one, and I think I know why: The terms of obtaining them require that they are paid the same as anybody else working in that particular job.
Slashdot likes to have it both ways on this one: They claim that Americans are stupid, as marked by poor test scores below most of the developed world. Yet at the same time they insist that there's no need for H-1B visas because we have plenty of well educated workers.
Those two statements are mutually exclusive of one another, you're going to have to decide which one you think is more accurate. I personally note this: If the foreign workers weren't talented, nobody would hire them. I think it is probably a good thing that they come here, pay our taxes, contribute to our GDP, and add to our "brain pool". Alternatively, US companies can't find any talent at all, so a foreign competitor takes over the market on the global economy. No amount of tariffs or duties will stop the later from happening - the US can't tell Germany, England, or Australia who they are and aren't allowed to buy from.
Well, I can nip that rumor in the bud. First, if you have an agreement stating that you, rather than the company, are liable or your own transgressions, in most cases it would be binding. Second, do you mean downloaded apps? Downloading is not piracy, which is a legal term meaning something else.
It's not a rumor, and there's nothing to nip in the bud because it's already happened. A company I worked for got sued because a bunch of their employees installed pirated software on their company issued laptops. They had such a contract in place with their employees that they were responsible for it, but that didn't stop the company itself from being found liable by a judge. They were still found liable because the computers ultimately belonged to the company.
And yes, by pirating I really do mean pirating. Nobody sues you for your definition.
In contrast, you're trying to say they can require an employee to buy or lease the equipment themselves, with no compensation.
Actually that's the way most jobs work. Plumbers, appliances repair men, mechanics...generally furnish their own tools. It's a bit impractical for it to work otherwise. Remember that small businesses account for 60% of the work force, and it can be rather difficult for small businesses to furnish a full set of tools to their employees. Try asking every pizzaria in the US to furnish cars to their delivery employees, or even pay for their gas. You'll get laughed at.
Big corporations have largely offset that by providing tools to their employees, but they can afford to do so. That doesn't obligate them to do so though. They don't provide you your own car to drive to work, nor do they pay your gas.
And here we are with computers that are much cheaper than cars, and they don't burn gas to use. And you're upset because your employer won't pay you for using it, particularly for a computer that you probably already owned beforehand anyways?
Sorry but that's just stupid. I wouldn't ever hire anybody with that attitude.
Well that isn't the only issue. BYOD also allows your company to avoid liability if the employee does anything illegal with it that you didn't authorize, such as using pirated software. Since you don't need to avoid that problem, you don't need to lock down their system either, therefore they can install their own copy of vlc without having to bother the help desk people.
If your company saves money when you work from home instead of leasing more office space, you may as well argue that they're now responsible for your mortgage payment as well. Or, the right thing would be to say "it's something I already have anyways, I'm just glad they're letting me use it instead of something they provision that I'm less comfortable with."
Local government regulations are the biggest expense that new providers have to deal with when entering a given market. Why do you think Google is so picky about where they deploy fiber? They are cherry picking their first markets for those whose governments are going to provide the lowest barrier to entry. Kansas City not only had the lowest, but they were so interested in fiber that they even offered them perks for coming.
In fact, there's a city government whose politicians are currently in hot water because their hesitancy to allow a google fiber rollout caused google to abandon plans to start a new deployment in that city. They had already delayed it by 9 months and then wanted to wait another month to delay, so google called it off (and right after they did, suddenly the council said they're ready to sign on the dotted line - though it was too little too late.)
In some places it is really hard to deploy broadband. Google is merely balking at delays in this case, but there are much worse things to contend with, for example bleeding hearts that don't like it when you have to dig trenches in areas where there is no conduit because it "upsets the land". Or worse, the city politicians who won't allow for 4g deployment citing "health concerns" even though there are no proven health concerns.
If the administration really wanted to speed broadband deployment, they should put restrictions as to what city governments are allowed to enact as far as ordinances that limit broadband deployment. Facilitating broadband deployment would be pretty easy to throw under the interstate commerce clause.
10 years ago you were still considered "lucky" to get broadband at all, so I'm not sure why they can blame it on 10 year old deregulation for a market that was largely in its infancy.
It's all about perspective to be honest. Probably because Obama generally looks favorably upon redistribution, which most people in America aren't in favor of. To us, that is socialist.
This is as opposed to say Francois Hollande, who wants a 75% tax rate in France. Does him being more socialist make Obama less socialist? Absolutely not. A Hollande supporter would say Obama isn't a socialist, but that doesn't make him any less socialist either.
And honestly, I hate the terms left and right because they don't do anything to describe a persons view on issues like personal liberties and economics. Often you have strange mixes of either. For example the left claim to be pro freedom, yet the most hardcore of them want to ban firearms and soft drinks. Right wing is supposedly closer to being Fascist/Nazi all about control, yet they're derided by the left for wanting a government with fewer laws, regulations, and taxes.
That depends on your perspective. From what I've observed, slashdot is very often pro AGW, anti-GMO, pro labor union, and "probama". You tend to notice those articles you disagree with more than the ones you agree with, and it's had articles pointing in favor of both sides of all of the above issues.
Oh and in addition to what I said earlier, unlike most of the organic crowd who proclaims that their food is healthier, I actually have an objective measurement for how the food I eat affects me. Every month I get blood work and I can actually look at where all of the numbers are. While the organic guy might say he feels great eating his overpriced organic food, I can point out that my electrolytes are where they're supposed to be (except for a few, which aren't possible to balance in my case due to IGAn) and my amino acids and lipids are at levels that they're supposed to be. Not many people can actually claim that, and I'm the one who the organic crowd says eats the bad foods because I shop at walmart.
In my opinion, organic food is a fraud. I myself believe that it is immoral to sell somebody a benefit that they aren't actually getting. Does that mean I think we should ban organic food? Nope, just so long as people know what they're getting, that's ok. I'm libertarian, so I don't think people should be restricted from buying whatever makes them happy, even if I think it is crazy for them to do so. That also extends to drugs, alcohol, prostitution, and gambling, all things which I myself don't do, but think everybody should have every right to if they want it.
In what way is Amazon's "service" better? Mostly, they have a huge inventory and cheap prices. That's about it.
Well there's that, the fact that items get delivered fast (often the stuff they promise to me in two days comes overnight, and I don't even live near a distribution center) and the fact that returning items is dead simple and they even pay for the return shipping. Also a book I bought from them had a mangled cover, I called to complain about it and they just refunded me $35 (the book cost $80,) and they didn't even want the book back.
That's not a good analogy. Whole Foods is a giant corporate structure whose goals are only marginally better than Walmart. Whole Foods isn't terrible, but its version of "organic" and "wholesome" foods is more about making customers feel better about what they're eating, rather than necessarily providing a consistently better product.
You've got that way off. Organic itself is more about making customers feel better about what they're eating, it has even been scientifically proven to be so. Unscientifically as well: Look at how the girl comments on how good the organic banana is compared to the non-organic one in this video (it's short)
Only it's the same fucking banana. A few of the shoppers admit they just want organic just because of how it makes them feel, nothing to do with the actual food itself. It's like paying extra for holy water just because it is blessed, even though nothing about the water has changed. Organic is just the new age holy water.
If GMO were being used to breed better, tastier, more diverse types of tomatoes, I might actually be interested in eating them.
That's not what people actually want. You yourself might claim as such, but chances are you won't actually follow that line of thinking when it comes to your palate. Most people like a specific flavor and tend to want to stick to its distinct taste, only changing when in their head they specifically seek change, or are otherwise forced to. Most people don't consciously realize this. Coca-Cola found this out the hard way back in the 80's. Look at high fructose corn syrup. Most Americans say they want real sugar, but when they taste foods they're already used to only with real sugar instead of HFCS, they tend to prefer the HFCS taste because it's what they're used to. Pepsi actually sells their soda brands with real sugar in the US under the throwback moniker, but most people don't buy them - instead mostly foreigners and immigrants buy them because that is the taste that they are used to, which makes it profitable enough to keep on the shelves.
The banana industry went through hell when they had to switch from the gross michel to the cavendish banana. There are all kinds of different varieties of banana out there, but people just wanted the gross michel because it was the flavor they were used to. When the gross michel was killed by a fungal plague, the industry had to switch to the cavendish. Well good because as you say, people want variety right? Wrong. It sold like shit for a while until people finally got used to the new flavor.
Well yeah, and in fact you can buy more than one variety of tomato at wal-mart. I often buy roma tomatoes to make salsa as roma tomatoes are a little juicier, and the roma tomatoes at wal-mart taste the same as the roma tomatoes at whole foods. Same with cherry tomatoes for salads.
And grats on being an elitist snob asshole who looks down his nose at people who live in a trailer. While I don't live in one myself, I happily shop at wal-mart, and there don't happen to be any trailer parks anywhere near it so I somewhat doubt they shop at that particular one - more likely they shop at the one about 20 miles east of where I live as it is much closer to them.
So you're saying nobody anywhere ever, other than the government, would fund climate research? That just makes no sense at all.
First, you have entire industries dedicated to profiting off of the idea that the world is about to explode unless we start going green. Solar panel manufacturers, raw materials recyclers, electric vehicle manufacturers, and much much more. Those groups alone profit from studies predicting a bad future.
Then you've also got the insurance industry who always has to have their ear to the ground when it comes to determining how much it should bill for premiums - a big chunk of their profit model comes from forecasting the climate.
Of course, doing this kind of research costs money. And why on earth would you spend any money on that when it's pretty easy to just get the government to do it for you? All you have to do is whisper into some politician's ear, and they'll eat it up because it makes their constituents feel good about themselves.
Actually they do. They provide a service as well. Providing a better service for less has similar results to providing a better product for less.
Anyways, I keep hearing that luddite argument that cheap food is now low quality, but that's a big load of crap. Having to follow a renal diet myself, I have to cook my own food from fresh ingredients, and I can't taste the difference between wal-mart tomatoes and whole foods tomatoes. Sure, on some days you can end up with a batch of tomatoes that doesn't have a whole lot of flavor compared to the previous one, however the same thing happens at whole foods as well - it all depends on the harvest. This is also coming from somebody who really enjoys food.
I also make similar rants against people who complain about GMO foods, which are perfectly fine for consumption, and are cheap. Some derps who have a financial interest in the organic industry (which has insanely higher profit margins) fund studies all the time with the explicit intent of trying to link GMO to cancer, and the anti-GMO movement will eat up just any result they give them, who cares if its reproducible or not, yet they'll violently attack any data that shows GMO to be safe, even research that is funded entirely independent of any food industry. (And no reliable studies anywhere ever have conclusively found any harm to come from GMO foods.)
It's fine and all to bash amazon for not collecting sales tax until you actually look at the stupidly high sales taxes some states have. Where I live it is 9.1%. It's annoying as hell when, for example, you buy a new laptop and have to pay an extra $100 above the asking price. We still pay income taxes and real estate taxes, in addition to taxes on vehicle registration. We also pay the highest taxes of any state for having cell phone service.
Even in a right to work environment, nobody has taken away the ability to bargain collectively. Rather, they can't say "Ok, we strike because we want this guy removed, and now you aren't allowed to let us go either; you're stuck with us, and further we're also going to harass anybody who chooses to continue to work".
I maintain that A) The employer should have the right to let those workers go. B) Those who continue to work shouldn't be subject to tyranny of the mob.
You've got that totally bass ackwards. You always want costs to be low. Always.
That should be common sense. Think of it this way: What good is having a high income if you can't afford anything anyways because everything costs so much?
On slashdot I so often see commenters complaining about how technology is replacing jobs and there won't be any jobs left (flashbacks to that robot that replaces noodle chefs in China come to mind.) Imagine the opposite scenario where there is no technology. For example, think replacing traffic lights with somebody whose job it is to stand in the middle of the intersection all day long directing traffic. Or worse, a computer used to be a person's occupation instead of a thing; why not just go back to those days? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_computer
Eventually you end up in a situation where we have no creature comforts, or even time to enjoy them, because we're always busy doing shit that we don't even want to do.
Technology by definition makes things cheaper. If you want to make things cost more, your best solution would be to ban all inventions of any kind. Cost represents efficiency in more ways than one, and the more something costs, the less efficient it is. Just as you always want to be more efficient, you also always want to reduce costs. And historically, there never has been any indication that human jobs are going away any time soon, nor has there been any indication that higher costs actually improve quality of life (quite the opposite, really.)
Well let's assume that these cars will be forbidden from speeding (which is a pretty wild assumption to begin with; hell, speeding limits are designed to allow drivers more time to react, autonomous cars react quicker, so speed limits may be less relevant if all cars were self driving) how often does somebody driving really fast in order to save a life actually happen? I'd say a good 99% of the time when I see somebody speeding, they aren't heading towards any hospital I'm aware of.
The US government is on a moral crusade to protect its citizens from hurting themselves by gambling. Same reason prostitution and drugs are banned, as well as soft drinks in New York. It's called a nanny state. Apparently if you gamble it kills your soul and causes god to hate you, and the government can't let that happen even though it can't prove that either god or souls exist, so we just have to deal with it.
If your "papers please" part is a reference to Arizona SB1070, know this: Several years after implementation that doesn't actually happen, nor was it intended to. It simply gives police officers the authority to enforce rules that the federal government has had in place for well over a century now.
Nobody has ever just been randomly stopped and asked for papers, that was just a fear tactic the bleeding hearts used similar to the death panels. SCOTUS has a long time ago ruled that people can't be randomly stopped and checked. They can ask for your drivers license if you're on the road as it is required to show proof that you are allowed to drive, but that's all you are required to give them; you don't even have to answer any of their questions or submit to any searches.
Now if you have broken the law, they are permitted to dig deeper.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't VP9 supposed to be unencumbered by patents anyways?
Just to clarify how the law works on this one, in most states (probably all, but there are 50 of them so you never know if there are variations) when you hop behind the wheel and start driving any car (whether you own it or not) you are responsible for the operation of that car, including if anything is wrong with it that causes an accident or any sort of moving violation, such as a malfunctioning safety device (and the speedometer is a safety device.)
Now that doesn't stop you from suing a manufacturer, mechanic, or other responsible party if something has gone wrong with the car that wasn't your fault and caused any damages. But, any damages (even just a ticket) are your responsibility first, and if the cause was from a manufacturer or mechanic, it's then on you to recover your losses from them. In other words, if your brakes fail due to manufacturer defect, you can't just tell the guy you rear ended to go collect from your car manufacturer. He goes after you, and whatever he collects from you, you then have to collect from the manufacturer.
You also still end up with a ticket and a mark on your driving record, because again you assumed responsibility for anything wrong with the car by driving it.
I suspect there was more to it than "they belonged to the company". Likely the company had no provisions to monitor or audit the software being used, or perhaps was even complicit in its use. If the company did not know about it, it is unlikely they would have been charged.
It was a civil suit, there is no "charge", rather it is a "lawsuit". Likewise, there is no law or anything requiring an audit, nor is it written anywhere that you need one. The company shouldn't need to go around shaking down all of it's employees - the work environment is much better that way. My boss would let me do pretty much whatever I wanted to so long as I got the job done without breaking the ethics code or any laws. And, it works great. Lawsuits like the one the company saw were rare. Of course, they're also pretty selective about who they hire as well, similar to Google.
You DO know what "piracy" is, yes? It is a legal term meaning to make copies (and usually selling) for profit. Who in the company was making copies for profit? Did management know about it?
You don't have to profit from it for it to be considered piracy, you just have to infringe on their copyrights. The more I read your posts the more it seems like you're just making shit up as you go along - I've been googling for the last two minutes and haven't found a single source that defines piracy as requiring you to make a profit - simply using unauthorized copies is enough.
Holy shit, dude. The term BYOD is referring to OFFICE WORK.
Woah, so because you're in this magical "office" means you shouldn't have to follow the same trends that everybody else does? They should probably post a sign saying that somewhere, or amend it into the constitution.
Of course not. But if they don't, they can hire somebody else. I am a programmer. If they want me to work in the office, but supply my own "tools", they can pay me for the use of them or find somebody else.
If this is the attitude that most programmers today have, then it's no wonder we have so many of them who can't find a job after they graduate. As I stated earlier, 60% of the workforce is employed by small businesses. These small businesses don't have the capital to go out and buy this kind of stuff for their employees, so it would make sense.
As a programmer, I'd sort of hope that you'd at least have a passion for it, which means you'd probably already own your own devices already. This is the same expectation the auto industry already has for mechanics. It therefore seems absurd for you to demand that your employer pay you for it.
Usually when programmers are involved in startups, using their own existing equipment is just a flat out given because they're already on a very tight budget since they don't even have any revenue stream yet (nearly all of the very wealthy programmers out there start out doing exactly this in fact. Bill Gates, John Carmack, Steve Wozniak, Mark Zuckerberg...) These guys also often work in an office, albeit generally a small one, with a little fridge for pizza. Of course, they also usually have a vested interest and indeed a passion in seeing the company succeed rather than just seeing the company as their source of a paycheck. You're no doubt the later though, with an added strong sense of entitlement (you even admit this subliminally,) so it wouldn't surprise me that somebody like you would never have any entrepreneurial sense at all either.
Not even. As I mentioned before: if he won't pay for the cost of using it, then he can hire somebody else. And good luck to him.
Good luck to you.
Except they don't. Where is this mysterious foreign worker that works for less money under the H-1B program? I've never met one, and I think I know why: The terms of obtaining them require that they are paid the same as anybody else working in that particular job.
Slashdot likes to have it both ways on this one: They claim that Americans are stupid, as marked by poor test scores below most of the developed world. Yet at the same time they insist that there's no need for H-1B visas because we have plenty of well educated workers.
Those two statements are mutually exclusive of one another, you're going to have to decide which one you think is more accurate. I personally note this: If the foreign workers weren't talented, nobody would hire them. I think it is probably a good thing that they come here, pay our taxes, contribute to our GDP, and add to our "brain pool". Alternatively, US companies can't find any talent at all, so a foreign competitor takes over the market on the global economy. No amount of tariffs or duties will stop the later from happening - the US can't tell Germany, England, or Australia who they are and aren't allowed to buy from.
Well, I can nip that rumor in the bud. First, if you have an agreement stating that you, rather than the company, are liable or your own transgressions, in most cases it would be binding. Second, do you mean downloaded apps? Downloading is not piracy, which is a legal term meaning something else.
It's not a rumor, and there's nothing to nip in the bud because it's already happened. A company I worked for got sued because a bunch of their employees installed pirated software on their company issued laptops. They had such a contract in place with their employees that they were responsible for it, but that didn't stop the company itself from being found liable by a judge. They were still found liable because the computers ultimately belonged to the company.
And yes, by pirating I really do mean pirating. Nobody sues you for your definition.
In contrast, you're trying to say they can require an employee to buy or lease the equipment themselves, with no compensation.
Actually that's the way most jobs work. Plumbers, appliances repair men, mechanics...generally furnish their own tools. It's a bit impractical for it to work otherwise. Remember that small businesses account for 60% of the work force, and it can be rather difficult for small businesses to furnish a full set of tools to their employees. Try asking every pizzaria in the US to furnish cars to their delivery employees, or even pay for their gas. You'll get laughed at.
Big corporations have largely offset that by providing tools to their employees, but they can afford to do so. That doesn't obligate them to do so though. They don't provide you your own car to drive to work, nor do they pay your gas.
And here we are with computers that are much cheaper than cars, and they don't burn gas to use. And you're upset because your employer won't pay you for using it, particularly for a computer that you probably already owned beforehand anyways?
Sorry but that's just stupid. I wouldn't ever hire anybody with that attitude.
Remember when it was England who used to tell Americans what to do?
Well that isn't the only issue. BYOD also allows your company to avoid liability if the employee does anything illegal with it that you didn't authorize, such as using pirated software. Since you don't need to avoid that problem, you don't need to lock down their system either, therefore they can install their own copy of vlc without having to bother the help desk people.
If your company saves money when you work from home instead of leasing more office space, you may as well argue that they're now responsible for your mortgage payment as well. Or, the right thing would be to say "it's something I already have anyways, I'm just glad they're letting me use it instead of something they provision that I'm less comfortable with."
Local government regulations are the biggest expense that new providers have to deal with when entering a given market. Why do you think Google is so picky about where they deploy fiber? They are cherry picking their first markets for those whose governments are going to provide the lowest barrier to entry. Kansas City not only had the lowest, but they were so interested in fiber that they even offered them perks for coming.
In fact, there's a city government whose politicians are currently in hot water because their hesitancy to allow a google fiber rollout caused google to abandon plans to start a new deployment in that city. They had already delayed it by 9 months and then wanted to wait another month to delay, so google called it off (and right after they did, suddenly the council said they're ready to sign on the dotted line - though it was too little too late.)
http://www.kansascity.com/2013/10/25/4575335/momentary-stall-in-overland-park.html
In some places it is really hard to deploy broadband. Google is merely balking at delays in this case, but there are much worse things to contend with, for example bleeding hearts that don't like it when you have to dig trenches in areas where there is no conduit because it "upsets the land". Or worse, the city politicians who won't allow for 4g deployment citing "health concerns" even though there are no proven health concerns.
If the administration really wanted to speed broadband deployment, they should put restrictions as to what city governments are allowed to enact as far as ordinances that limit broadband deployment. Facilitating broadband deployment would be pretty easy to throw under the interstate commerce clause.
10 years ago you were still considered "lucky" to get broadband at all, so I'm not sure why they can blame it on 10 year old deregulation for a market that was largely in its infancy.
It's all about perspective to be honest. Probably because Obama generally looks favorably upon redistribution, which most people in America aren't in favor of. To us, that is socialist.
This is as opposed to say Francois Hollande, who wants a 75% tax rate in France. Does him being more socialist make Obama less socialist? Absolutely not. A Hollande supporter would say Obama isn't a socialist, but that doesn't make him any less socialist either.
And honestly, I hate the terms left and right because they don't do anything to describe a persons view on issues like personal liberties and economics. Often you have strange mixes of either. For example the left claim to be pro freedom, yet the most hardcore of them want to ban firearms and soft drinks. Right wing is supposedly closer to being Fascist/Nazi all about control, yet they're derided by the left for wanting a government with fewer laws, regulations, and taxes.
That depends on your perspective. From what I've observed, slashdot is very often pro AGW, anti-GMO, pro labor union, and "probama". You tend to notice those articles you disagree with more than the ones you agree with, and it's had articles pointing in favor of both sides of all of the above issues.
That is actually a new one to me, but it makes sense. The ACLU does a fair bit of lobbying in the same manner as that of citizens united.
Yes, that's a great reason to have a high sales tax for services that are worse than the same ones that other states provide at lower cost.
Oh and in addition to what I said earlier, unlike most of the organic crowd who proclaims that their food is healthier, I actually have an objective measurement for how the food I eat affects me. Every month I get blood work and I can actually look at where all of the numbers are. While the organic guy might say he feels great eating his overpriced organic food, I can point out that my electrolytes are where they're supposed to be (except for a few, which aren't possible to balance in my case due to IGAn) and my amino acids and lipids are at levels that they're supposed to be. Not many people can actually claim that, and I'm the one who the organic crowd says eats the bad foods because I shop at walmart.
In my opinion, organic food is a fraud. I myself believe that it is immoral to sell somebody a benefit that they aren't actually getting. Does that mean I think we should ban organic food? Nope, just so long as people know what they're getting, that's ok. I'm libertarian, so I don't think people should be restricted from buying whatever makes them happy, even if I think it is crazy for them to do so. That also extends to drugs, alcohol, prostitution, and gambling, all things which I myself don't do, but think everybody should have every right to if they want it.
In what way is Amazon's "service" better? Mostly, they have a huge inventory and cheap prices. That's about it.
Well there's that, the fact that items get delivered fast (often the stuff they promise to me in two days comes overnight, and I don't even live near a distribution center) and the fact that returning items is dead simple and they even pay for the return shipping. Also a book I bought from them had a mangled cover, I called to complain about it and they just refunded me $35 (the book cost $80,) and they didn't even want the book back.
That's not a good analogy. Whole Foods is a giant corporate structure whose goals are only marginally better than Walmart. Whole Foods isn't terrible, but its version of "organic" and "wholesome" foods is more about making customers feel better about what they're eating, rather than necessarily providing a consistently better product.
You've got that way off. Organic itself is more about making customers feel better about what they're eating, it has even been scientifically proven to be so. Unscientifically as well: Look at how the girl comments on how good the organic banana is compared to the non-organic one in this video (it's short)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zqe4ZV9LDs
Only it's the same fucking banana. A few of the shoppers admit they just want organic just because of how it makes them feel, nothing to do with the actual food itself. It's like paying extra for holy water just because it is blessed, even though nothing about the water has changed. Organic is just the new age holy water.
If GMO were being used to breed better, tastier, more diverse types of tomatoes, I might actually be interested in eating them.
That's not what people actually want. You yourself might claim as such, but chances are you won't actually follow that line of thinking when it comes to your palate. Most people like a specific flavor and tend to want to stick to its distinct taste, only changing when in their head they specifically seek change, or are otherwise forced to. Most people don't consciously realize this. Coca-Cola found this out the hard way back in the 80's. Look at high fructose corn syrup. Most Americans say they want real sugar, but when they taste foods they're already used to only with real sugar instead of HFCS, they tend to prefer the HFCS taste because it's what they're used to. Pepsi actually sells their soda brands with real sugar in the US under the throwback moniker, but most people don't buy them - instead mostly foreigners and immigrants buy them because that is the taste that they are used to, which makes it profitable enough to keep on the shelves.
The banana industry went through hell when they had to switch from the gross michel to the cavendish banana. There are all kinds of different varieties of banana out there, but people just wanted the gross michel because it was the flavor they were used to. When the gross michel was killed by a fungal plague, the industry had to switch to the cavendish. Well good because as you say, people want variety right? Wrong. It sold like shit for a while until people finally got used to the new flavor.
Well yeah, and in fact you can buy more than one variety of tomato at wal-mart. I often buy roma tomatoes to make salsa as roma tomatoes are a little juicier, and the roma tomatoes at wal-mart taste the same as the roma tomatoes at whole foods. Same with cherry tomatoes for salads.
You can have good things for cheap.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zqe4ZV9LDs
And grats on being an elitist snob asshole who looks down his nose at people who live in a trailer. While I don't live in one myself, I happily shop at wal-mart, and there don't happen to be any trailer parks anywhere near it so I somewhat doubt they shop at that particular one - more likely they shop at the one about 20 miles east of where I live as it is much closer to them.
So you're saying nobody anywhere ever, other than the government, would fund climate research? That just makes no sense at all.
First, you have entire industries dedicated to profiting off of the idea that the world is about to explode unless we start going green. Solar panel manufacturers, raw materials recyclers, electric vehicle manufacturers, and much much more. Those groups alone profit from studies predicting a bad future.
Then you've also got the insurance industry who always has to have their ear to the ground when it comes to determining how much it should bill for premiums - a big chunk of their profit model comes from forecasting the climate.
Of course, doing this kind of research costs money. And why on earth would you spend any money on that when it's pretty easy to just get the government to do it for you? All you have to do is whisper into some politician's ear, and they'll eat it up because it makes their constituents feel good about themselves.
Amazon doesn't make anything
Actually they do. They provide a service as well. Providing a better service for less has similar results to providing a better product for less.
Anyways, I keep hearing that luddite argument that cheap food is now low quality, but that's a big load of crap. Having to follow a renal diet myself, I have to cook my own food from fresh ingredients, and I can't taste the difference between wal-mart tomatoes and whole foods tomatoes. Sure, on some days you can end up with a batch of tomatoes that doesn't have a whole lot of flavor compared to the previous one, however the same thing happens at whole foods as well - it all depends on the harvest. This is also coming from somebody who really enjoys food.
I also make similar rants against people who complain about GMO foods, which are perfectly fine for consumption, and are cheap. Some derps who have a financial interest in the organic industry (which has insanely higher profit margins) fund studies all the time with the explicit intent of trying to link GMO to cancer, and the anti-GMO movement will eat up just any result they give them, who cares if its reproducible or not, yet they'll violently attack any data that shows GMO to be safe, even research that is funded entirely independent of any food industry. (And no reliable studies anywhere ever have conclusively found any harm to come from GMO foods.)
It's fine and all to bash amazon for not collecting sales tax until you actually look at the stupidly high sales taxes some states have. Where I live it is 9.1%. It's annoying as hell when, for example, you buy a new laptop and have to pay an extra $100 above the asking price. We still pay income taxes and real estate taxes, in addition to taxes on vehicle registration. We also pay the highest taxes of any state for having cell phone service.
Even in a right to work environment, nobody has taken away the ability to bargain collectively. Rather, they can't say "Ok, we strike because we want this guy removed, and now you aren't allowed to let us go either; you're stuck with us, and further we're also going to harass anybody who chooses to continue to work".
I maintain that
A) The employer should have the right to let those workers go.
B) Those who continue to work shouldn't be subject to tyranny of the mob.
You've got that totally bass ackwards. You always want costs to be low. Always.
That should be common sense. Think of it this way: What good is having a high income if you can't afford anything anyways because everything costs so much?
On slashdot I so often see commenters complaining about how technology is replacing jobs and there won't be any jobs left (flashbacks to that robot that replaces noodle chefs in China come to mind.) Imagine the opposite scenario where there is no technology. For example, think replacing traffic lights with somebody whose job it is to stand in the middle of the intersection all day long directing traffic. Or worse, a computer used to be a person's occupation instead of a thing; why not just go back to those days? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_computer
Eventually you end up in a situation where we have no creature comforts, or even time to enjoy them, because we're always busy doing shit that we don't even want to do.
Technology by definition makes things cheaper. If you want to make things cost more, your best solution would be to ban all inventions of any kind. Cost represents efficiency in more ways than one, and the more something costs, the less efficient it is. Just as you always want to be more efficient, you also always want to reduce costs. And historically, there never has been any indication that human jobs are going away any time soon, nor has there been any indication that higher costs actually improve quality of life (quite the opposite, really.)
Well let's assume that these cars will be forbidden from speeding (which is a pretty wild assumption to begin with; hell, speeding limits are designed to allow drivers more time to react, autonomous cars react quicker, so speed limits may be less relevant if all cars were self driving) how often does somebody driving really fast in order to save a life actually happen? I'd say a good 99% of the time when I see somebody speeding, they aren't heading towards any hospital I'm aware of.
Who in congress believes that? Names please.
The US government is on a moral crusade to protect its citizens from hurting themselves by gambling. Same reason prostitution and drugs are banned, as well as soft drinks in New York. It's called a nanny state. Apparently if you gamble it kills your soul and causes god to hate you, and the government can't let that happen even though it can't prove that either god or souls exist, so we just have to deal with it.
If your "papers please" part is a reference to Arizona SB1070, know this: Several years after implementation that doesn't actually happen, nor was it intended to. It simply gives police officers the authority to enforce rules that the federal government has had in place for well over a century now.
Nobody has ever just been randomly stopped and asked for papers, that was just a fear tactic the bleeding hearts used similar to the death panels. SCOTUS has a long time ago ruled that people can't be randomly stopped and checked. They can ask for your drivers license if you're on the road as it is required to show proof that you are allowed to drive, but that's all you are required to give them; you don't even have to answer any of their questions or submit to any searches.
Now if you have broken the law, they are permitted to dig deeper.