The Screen Actors Guild is really uptight about making sure that every actor everywhere is in their union, to the point of fining its members if they perform in the same piece as an actor that isn't part of that union. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to kill this either, namely because indie studios might be more likely to stay away from that union because they can't afford to pay what any of its members demand.
Or perhaps they take advantage of the fact that the rest of the world has a much larger population than the US alone, and therefore the selection of candidates who have the exact skill set or close enough to it that they want is much larger. So naturally, they'll seek H1-B workers.
One thing I've noticed when talking to employers is that many American IT workers demand ridiculous figures that nobody can afford (e.g. I want $150k per year even though what I can offer the company doesn't justify that wage rate) whereas H1-B workers will gladly work for what the average going rate for somebody of their talent.
Many on slashdot are, I'm sure, familiar with the concept that if you can't afford to pay a high price for something, then you'll simply do without it. Under the same reasoning, somebody isn't going to pay you the X amount per year that you demand when you'll bring in less than that to their company, there's just no point.
You're calling him a tool, but in reality you're a moron for being so short sighted.
It would be hard as hell to regulate 3d printers to the degree that firearms are regulated, namely because 3d printers have far too many applications for any government to just restrict them to such and such person.
It would basically be akin to forbidding encryption on the internet and requiring the ISPs to log all communications because it might be used to spread terrorist propaganda.
How is it a lie? He even admitted to it. Somebody wants to sure me for it? Go right on ahead.
That isn't why I don't like the guy though, I don't like him because of all of the stupid decisions he's made, one of which gives him a great share of responsibility for the sub prime fiasco. Worse is how he denied saying things that were recorded on camera ffs.
If he wants to sue me over that, he should contact the Slashdot editors, show them this post, and tell them they have my consent to give him my email address. Upon request, I'll gladly give that lispy moron my real name and address.
You're missing the point. Take my case: before switching to T-Mobile, I bought five nexus 4 phones at about 300 a pop. T-Mobile let's me put then on their service for $110 a month for all five lines fully unlimited, and no need for a contract. That's dirt cheap. At&t not so much. At&t I bring my nexus phones over, I still pay as if they subsidized it, which is upwards of $250 a month, AND a have to agree to a two year term. This is where T-Mobile wins, and they shine too.
Thus AG who is complaining about T-Mobile is either a moron or a shill. The later wouldn't surprise me because many politicians are known for granting favors to larger communications providers, and I'll bet that if you look into his campaign finances, there's probably a sprint, Verizon, or at&t line item in it.
Or perhaps you could do the prudent thing and blame it on poor budgeting decisions.
I think that, for example, this is better than sending money to the national endowment of the arts, or even cut it into defense spending by stopping the manufacture of Abrams tanks that the Army generals have already asked that they stop doing.
I don't see how anybody anywhere could argue that this is a reason to increase spending. Even if you raised the shit out of the top income rate, you still haven't solved the budget deficit. The spending HAS to decrease as what we're currently doing is absolutely not sustainable.
Cutting more important spending projects just so that they could say "See?! We must spend more!" is a really asshole thing to do, and people like you foolishly buy into it.
The US still has laws that ban certain types of pornography that they call obscene material, and there is even a supreme court case which provides a litmus test for upholding that ban. Nobody has enforced that in recent times though. 40 years ago you couldn't have a man and a woman lying in the same bed on terrestrial television, they were required to have at least one foot on the ground, and words that could even in some way even remotely hint at sex, like the word pregnant of all things, were outlawed. Elves Presly's wild dances were seen as sexually suggestive. In the early 1900's, most places had ordinances that forbade women from wearing anything smaller than a t-shirt (bikini's were right out.)
I things have changed quite a bit since then. Adultery among politicians is still taboo here where it isn't in Europe, but other than that there isn't any large scale effort to remove sexual references from the public eye in the media, whereas there is in Europe apparently. I think that particular taboo is on its way out though. We've already had a few politicians repeatedly get re-elected after admitting to having sex with a minor (see Bawny Fwank.)
From the article I linked, it's already guns and nooses in Greece. There's also a sizable skinhead problem in the UK. A rather wealthy neo-nazi was just tried for something in sweden, don't remember what though, but he still has a lot of loyal followers there. And there are 18 practicing neo-nazi's in the EU parlaiment.
In the US, outspoken racists are rare. It's borderline impossible for outspoken racists to even find a good paying job here, and they don't last long at even the most right wing universities.
I don't think you read the article I posted - the neo-nazi group mentioned has 18 seats in the EU parliament. People who are currently active and practicing members of neo-nazi groups are elected officials presently holding office.
I don't know David Duke, but I am familiar with Robert KKK Byrd, who was elected into the US senate.
Both of them, at the time of their political office, disassociated themselves with the KKK. I think both of them are dicks anyways, but at least they can claim that much, and there are only two of them.
Wait...WHAT? Yes, it did work in South Korea, they currently have a democratic government and one of the most booming economies in the world. That wouldn't have been possible without US involvement. And they aren't going to become hostile towards the US any time soon, and the goals of the US were achieved there, so mission accomplished.
Revisionist history much?
There was only one attempt on Iraq (the first Gulf War we only intended to protect Kuwait...and that was quite a success) and we don't really know yet whether or not that one attempt has the long term desired result.
Same thing with Afghanistan, though Afghanistan looks less likely to succeed than Iraq.
You can say that again. I thought the US was very anti-pornography, and if you believe anything Bill Maher says, Americans are more sensitive to that kind of thing than anybody. Yet other than child pornography, there hasn't been any significant effort to ban it from either private homes or public places. This, as well as the recent European parliament nearly banning all forms of pornography, hints to me that it may not be quite what it seems.
I probably shouldn't be surprised though. The US has this reputation as being one of the most racist countries in the world, yet all of the known race baiting groups in the US are relatively silent compared to those in Europe where neo-nazism is far more more common, apparently. They even have people who are openly neo-nazi in their parliament ffs.
You're thinking of those one offs, and actually all retail outlets do this when it comes to specials. A few years back I bought a Samsung TV that was only made for best buy. It was basically a stripped down version of a higher model, namely it was missing a few inputs and a few "smart tv" features, none of which were advertised.
I was aware due to forum searching, but didn't care though because I only intended to use it as a very big computer monitor. Like other Samsung TV's, it had the only features I was after: at least a single input with 4:4:4 chroma subsample, low latency when in that mode, and a defeatable sharpness filter. Does a fine job for what I got it for and at a low price. Again, only made for Bestbuy.
Other than those one off specials, they're the same.
That or some manufacturers do what Asus does. Asus provides two year warranties with one year accidental coverage on ALL laptops they sell for free, except if it is sold at best buy, office max, wal-mart, staples, and a few others.
That doesn't change anything because those exact same ones are sold at other stores too, it's not just walmart.
The difference is Levi is made in China, whereas Strauss is made in Vietnam. Some say there's a difference between the two, but I haven't noticed any. They all fade just the same, and they all wear out just the same. Often fading and wearing is by design because faded and worn jeans tend to be more fashionable among some people.
How can they sell something less durable when it is the exact same thing that you can buy at a more expensive store?
For example, if you buy a Samsung TV at walmart, it is the same one you'll buy at worst buy, only it (usually) costs less and it's always right around the corner so you don't need to use as much gas (and the dreaded carbon footprint) to find a worst buy all the way across town.
Same thing applies to food. Yesterday wal-mart had a sale on USDA choice marble steaks, about 75 cents per pound cheaper than Kroger. The USDA inspected the meat and found it to be the same quality as that sold at Kroger, but you're telling me that theirs is inferior? Ha.
But go on mindlessly telling yourself that wal-mart is ruining America by making good stuff easier for the poor to afford.
You know why wal-mart pays people crap wages? Because that's what they're worth. Most wal-mart employees I run into are just plain rude assfucks, one of whom got annoyed at me for simply asking if they had a certain size of Levi's (yes, the exact same Levi's that you buy anywhere else.) I guarantee you that they work there not because wal-mart is a great place to work, but because nobody else will hire their asses. If they tried to work at say Kohl's, where the employees actually treat you with dignity, they'd be fired on their first day on the job. In many cases, it's either they work there or just don't work. But people like you take it upon yourself to say that walmart is doing a great social injustice by giving these people a job, even if it is a shitty one, because god forbid they do that instead of going on the dole and drive the government further into debt.
When I shop at walmart, I don't expect to be treated like royalty. I shop there because at the end of the day I can get a cheap pair of Levi's.
Uh...wut? How the fuck has gun control been shown to reduce violence?
Where I live, (Phoenix) there are basically no restrictions on firearms. You can walk around with a pistol concealed in your jacket and an assault rifle slinged around your back, and nobody will bother you. No permits of any kind required for any of these. Phoenix isn't a small city either, it's the 6th largest in the US.
Yet some place like Chicago, where you basically aren't allowed to own anything useful for that purpose, and even if you do, it has to be disabled to the point that it is useless in an emergency and can't be carried anywhere, has a higher per capita firearms related offenses.
Sort that list by the brady score, then look firearm related homicides per capita figure next to it. There is practically zero correlation.
One interesting thing (anomaly perhaps?) is that the brady index has no data on DC, yet it is well known to be one of the most restrictive in the US. Yet it simultaneously has the worst figures in all of them for firearms related homicides.
If you want to reduce firearms related offenses, I'd say the best way is to simply legalize all narcotics for recreational use. Basically, just end the drug war. Arizona, California, and Texas are probably harmed the most by it. Arizona is also harmed by illegal immigration, as it has the highest rate of kidnappings of any city in the world, nearly all of them related to immigrants holding other immigrants for ransom. I'd bet that this also contributes to homicides by firearms.
Eventually the content providers will just provide DRM free media anyways. Do you know why? For the same reason why they still allow content to be broadcast over the air DRM free:
In spite of making threats that they wouldn't permit broadcasts of their media without a broadcast flag, none was ever implemented so they permitted it anyways because it was too lucrative to not do so.
While we're at it, lets also ignore the fact that raising the minimum wage also raises unemployment while doing nothing to increase long term purchasing power.
You can't, for example, have all grocery store workers making $20 an hour, and then expect to be able to buy cheap groceries. If you increase everybody's wages, you increase everybody's costs. What good does it do to earn more if everything costs more?
Meanwhile, you do actually have a very high impact on the number of people who can actually be employed. You're basically telling unskilled workers: "Hey, either make at least this much, or make nothing at all." The demand for low skilled labor is very elastic, meaning the demand for it is highly influenced by its price.
Aside from this being off topic (and annoyingly so) those studies never look at actual wealth, rather they look at money, while those who plaster them all about (like you just did) foolishly use them as an indicator of wealth. Wealth and money are not one in the same.
That article makes a specific mark against Obama, which you'd figure somebody who is anti-Obama such as myself would support, however I don't because it's a BS statistic that somebody is pulling out of their ass to rally "the cause" against their Emmanuel Goldstein, or rather something equally arbitrary: the dreaded 1%.
People who are supposedly out to represent the poor also happen to be the worst enemy of the poor. For example, companies like wal-mart actually make the poor wealthier by providing material goods for less money. But those who claim they want to make life easier for the poor also overwhelmingly oppose wal-mart.
Before the surgery it was basically impossible for me to see long distances without seeing double. No, I'm confident that the surgery played a critical role.
Slashdot Mirror
Non union actors need better conditions and better wages?
The Screen Actors Guild is really uptight about making sure that every actor everywhere is in their union, to the point of fining its members if they perform in the same piece as an actor that isn't part of that union. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to kill this either, namely because indie studios might be more likely to stay away from that union because they can't afford to pay what any of its members demand.
Or perhaps they take advantage of the fact that the rest of the world has a much larger population than the US alone, and therefore the selection of candidates who have the exact skill set or close enough to it that they want is much larger. So naturally, they'll seek H1-B workers.
One thing I've noticed when talking to employers is that many American IT workers demand ridiculous figures that nobody can afford (e.g. I want $150k per year even though what I can offer the company doesn't justify that wage rate) whereas H1-B workers will gladly work for what the average going rate for somebody of their talent.
Many on slashdot are, I'm sure, familiar with the concept that if you can't afford to pay a high price for something, then you'll simply do without it. Under the same reasoning, somebody isn't going to pay you the X amount per year that you demand when you'll bring in less than that to their company, there's just no point.
You're calling him a tool, but in reality you're a moron for being so short sighted.
It would be hard as hell to regulate 3d printers to the degree that firearms are regulated, namely because 3d printers have far too many applications for any government to just restrict them to such and such person.
It would basically be akin to forbidding encryption on the internet and requiring the ISPs to log all communications because it might be used to spread terrorist propaganda.
How is it a lie? He even admitted to it. Somebody wants to sure me for it? Go right on ahead.
That isn't why I don't like the guy though, I don't like him because of all of the stupid decisions he's made, one of which gives him a great share of responsibility for the sub prime fiasco. Worse is how he denied saying things that were recorded on camera ffs.
If he wants to sue me over that, he should contact the Slashdot editors, show them this post, and tell them they have my consent to give him my email address. Upon request, I'll gladly give that lispy moron my real name and address.
So buy a nexus 4 from Google. They are great phones and only cost $300. There, no contract.
You're missing the point. Take my case: before switching to T-Mobile, I bought five nexus 4 phones at about 300 a pop. T-Mobile let's me put then on their service for $110 a month for all five lines fully unlimited, and no need for a contract. That's dirt cheap. At&t not so much. At&t I bring my nexus phones over, I still pay as if they subsidized it, which is upwards of $250 a month, AND a have to agree to a two year term. This is where T-Mobile wins, and they shine too.
Thus AG who is complaining about T-Mobile is either a moron or a shill. The later wouldn't surprise me because many politicians are known for granting favors to larger communications providers, and I'll bet that if you look into his campaign finances, there's probably a sprint, Verizon, or at&t line item in it.
Or perhaps you could do the prudent thing and blame it on poor budgeting decisions.
I think that, for example, this is better than sending money to the national endowment of the arts, or even cut it into defense spending by stopping the manufacture of Abrams tanks that the Army generals have already asked that they stop doing.
I don't see how anybody anywhere could argue that this is a reason to increase spending. Even if you raised the shit out of the top income rate, you still haven't solved the budget deficit. The spending HAS to decrease as what we're currently doing is absolutely not sustainable.
Cutting more important spending projects just so that they could say "See?! We must spend more!" is a really asshole thing to do, and people like you foolishly buy into it.
The US still has laws that ban certain types of pornography that they call obscene material, and there is even a supreme court case which provides a litmus test for upholding that ban. Nobody has enforced that in recent times though. 40 years ago you couldn't have a man and a woman lying in the same bed on terrestrial television, they were required to have at least one foot on the ground, and words that could even in some way even remotely hint at sex, like the word pregnant of all things, were outlawed. Elves Presly's wild dances were seen as sexually suggestive. In the early 1900's, most places had ordinances that forbade women from wearing anything smaller than a t-shirt (bikini's were right out.)
I things have changed quite a bit since then. Adultery among politicians is still taboo here where it isn't in Europe, but other than that there isn't any large scale effort to remove sexual references from the public eye in the media, whereas there is in Europe apparently. I think that particular taboo is on its way out though. We've already had a few politicians repeatedly get re-elected after admitting to having sex with a minor (see Bawny Fwank.)
The US occupied Germany for quite some time after WWII. Boots were definitely on the ground.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvcf9DKSpPw
"You are in enemy territory."
"Make that next war impossible."
"Observe their local laws."
"German people are not our friends."
Apparently the US took that attitude after leaving Germany early, and that turned out to be a mistake.
From the article I linked, it's already guns and nooses in Greece. There's also a sizable skinhead problem in the UK. A rather wealthy neo-nazi was just tried for something in sweden, don't remember what though, but he still has a lot of loyal followers there. And there are 18 practicing neo-nazi's in the EU parlaiment.
In the US, outspoken racists are rare. It's borderline impossible for outspoken racists to even find a good paying job here, and they don't last long at even the most right wing universities.
I don't think you read the article I posted - the neo-nazi group mentioned has 18 seats in the EU parliament. People who are currently active and practicing members of neo-nazi groups are elected officials presently holding office.
I don't know David Duke, but I am familiar with Robert KKK Byrd, who was elected into the US senate.
Both of them, at the time of their political office, disassociated themselves with the KKK. I think both of them are dicks anyways, but at least they can claim that much, and there are only two of them.
Hollywood makes things a bit more dramatic than they actually are - be it positive or negative.
Wait...WHAT? Yes, it did work in South Korea, they currently have a democratic government and one of the most booming economies in the world. That wouldn't have been possible without US involvement. And they aren't going to become hostile towards the US any time soon, and the goals of the US were achieved there, so mission accomplished.
Revisionist history much?
There was only one attempt on Iraq (the first Gulf War we only intended to protect Kuwait...and that was quite a success) and we don't really know yet whether or not that one attempt has the long term desired result.
Same thing with Afghanistan, though Afghanistan looks less likely to succeed than Iraq.
But is there anything you can do about the shit?
You can say that again. I thought the US was very anti-pornography, and if you believe anything Bill Maher says, Americans are more sensitive to that kind of thing than anybody. Yet other than child pornography, there hasn't been any significant effort to ban it from either private homes or public places. This, as well as the recent European parliament nearly banning all forms of pornography, hints to me that it may not be quite what it seems.
I probably shouldn't be surprised though. The US has this reputation as being one of the most racist countries in the world, yet all of the known race baiting groups in the US are relatively silent compared to those in Europe where neo-nazism is far more more common, apparently. They even have people who are openly neo-nazi in their parliament ffs.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/neo-nazis-and-right-wing-extremists-gaining-support-in-greece-a-894596.html
You're thinking of those one offs, and actually all retail outlets do this when it comes to specials. A few years back I bought a Samsung TV that was only made for best buy. It was basically a stripped down version of a higher model, namely it was missing a few inputs and a few "smart tv" features, none of which were advertised.
I was aware due to forum searching, but didn't care though because I only intended to use it as a very big computer monitor. Like other Samsung TV's, it had the only features I was after: at least a single input with 4:4:4 chroma subsample, low latency when in that mode, and a defeatable sharpness filter. Does a fine job for what I got it for and at a low price. Again, only made for Bestbuy.
Other than those one off specials, they're the same.
That or some manufacturers do what Asus does. Asus provides two year warranties with one year accidental coverage on ALL laptops they sell for free, except if it is sold at best buy, office max, wal-mart, staples, and a few others.
Reading fail. See my previous response to somebody else about the Levi's.
That doesn't change anything because those exact same ones are sold at other stores too, it's not just walmart.
The difference is Levi is made in China, whereas Strauss is made in Vietnam. Some say there's a difference between the two, but I haven't noticed any. They all fade just the same, and they all wear out just the same. Often fading and wearing is by design because faded and worn jeans tend to be more fashionable among some people.
How can they sell something less durable when it is the exact same thing that you can buy at a more expensive store?
For example, if you buy a Samsung TV at walmart, it is the same one you'll buy at worst buy, only it (usually) costs less and it's always right around the corner so you don't need to use as much gas (and the dreaded carbon footprint) to find a worst buy all the way across town.
Same thing applies to food. Yesterday wal-mart had a sale on USDA choice marble steaks, about 75 cents per pound cheaper than Kroger. The USDA inspected the meat and found it to be the same quality as that sold at Kroger, but you're telling me that theirs is inferior? Ha.
But go on mindlessly telling yourself that wal-mart is ruining America by making good stuff easier for the poor to afford.
You know why wal-mart pays people crap wages? Because that's what they're worth. Most wal-mart employees I run into are just plain rude assfucks, one of whom got annoyed at me for simply asking if they had a certain size of Levi's (yes, the exact same Levi's that you buy anywhere else.) I guarantee you that they work there not because wal-mart is a great place to work, but because nobody else will hire their asses. If they tried to work at say Kohl's, where the employees actually treat you with dignity, they'd be fired on their first day on the job. In many cases, it's either they work there or just don't work. But people like you take it upon yourself to say that walmart is doing a great social injustice by giving these people a job, even if it is a shitty one, because god forbid they do that instead of going on the dole and drive the government further into debt.
When I shop at walmart, I don't expect to be treated like royalty. I shop there because at the end of the day I can get a cheap pair of Levi's.
Uh...wut? How the fuck has gun control been shown to reduce violence?
Where I live, (Phoenix) there are basically no restrictions on firearms. You can walk around with a pistol concealed in your jacket and an assault rifle slinged around your back, and nobody will bother you. No permits of any kind required for any of these. Phoenix isn't a small city either, it's the 6th largest in the US.
Yet some place like Chicago, where you basically aren't allowed to own anything useful for that purpose, and even if you do, it has to be disabled to the point that it is useless in an emergency and can't be carried anywhere, has a higher per capita firearms related offenses.
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/01/gun-violence-us-cities-compared-deadliest-nations-world/4412/
Here's another little factoid for you to look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
Sort that list by the brady score, then look firearm related homicides per capita figure next to it. There is practically zero correlation.
One interesting thing (anomaly perhaps?) is that the brady index has no data on DC, yet it is well known to be one of the most restrictive in the US. Yet it simultaneously has the worst figures in all of them for firearms related homicides.
If you want to reduce firearms related offenses, I'd say the best way is to simply legalize all narcotics for recreational use. Basically, just end the drug war. Arizona, California, and Texas are probably harmed the most by it. Arizona is also harmed by illegal immigration, as it has the highest rate of kidnappings of any city in the world, nearly all of them related to immigrants holding other immigrants for ransom. I'd bet that this also contributes to homicides by firearms.
Eventually the content providers will just provide DRM free media anyways. Do you know why? For the same reason why they still allow content to be broadcast over the air DRM free:
In spite of making threats that they wouldn't permit broadcasts of their media without a broadcast flag, none was ever implemented so they permitted it anyways because it was too lucrative to not do so.
While we're at it, lets also ignore the fact that raising the minimum wage also raises unemployment while doing nothing to increase long term purchasing power.
You can't, for example, have all grocery store workers making $20 an hour, and then expect to be able to buy cheap groceries. If you increase everybody's wages, you increase everybody's costs. What good does it do to earn more if everything costs more?
Meanwhile, you do actually have a very high impact on the number of people who can actually be employed. You're basically telling unskilled workers: "Hey, either make at least this much, or make nothing at all." The demand for low skilled labor is very elastic, meaning the demand for it is highly influenced by its price.
Aside from this being off topic (and annoyingly so) those studies never look at actual wealth, rather they look at money, while those who plaster them all about (like you just did) foolishly use them as an indicator of wealth. Wealth and money are not one in the same.
That article makes a specific mark against Obama, which you'd figure somebody who is anti-Obama such as myself would support, however I don't because it's a BS statistic that somebody is pulling out of their ass to rally "the cause" against their Emmanuel Goldstein, or rather something equally arbitrary: the dreaded 1%.
People who are supposedly out to represent the poor also happen to be the worst enemy of the poor. For example, companies like wal-mart actually make the poor wealthier by providing material goods for less money. But those who claim they want to make life easier for the poor also overwhelmingly oppose wal-mart.
Before the surgery it was basically impossible for me to see long distances without seeing double. No, I'm confident that the surgery played a critical role.