My grandfather founded True Value Hardware (well, was one of the founding members, anyway). The last time I was in, I walked through the toy section (I walked through every section, but that's beside the point), and I noted that the toys on the shelf were pretty high priced. So I asked the manager (uncle, as gramps is not around anymore) what his buy price is for that toy. I pulled out my phone, and checked. It would be cheaper for True Value stores to buy retail from Wal-Mart than wholesale from the True Value distributor. And unlike some of the clothes and other items, the toys are actually identical between the two. The gap was large enough that the corporate buyers for True Value were likely paying retail or higher.
It's actually really hard for retailers. They eventually closed the store.
Apple is more profitable than Xiomi. The race to the bottom doesn't exist in the middle class and above. The race to the bottom only exists in the people who have the choice of the lowest quality cheapest item, or doing without. That we are growing the poor is the race to the bottom, not the ability to buy cheap things.
Ah, an actual case of begging the question. You are assuming that a race to the bottom is a bad thing. Why is efficiency despised so much? Oh, the government is so inefficient. Oh no, even worse, the government did something efficient!
$1 isn't free, and if the request was for code that already exists, why wouldn't someone bid $1 to present the (already existing open source) code?
Though it was apparently done by a proper company, so now they have a "win" on their record, which makes it eaiser to win in the future (though not in the reverse auction system), and may help with things like funding.
So if society has systemic racism and success is less likely in a Black person than a white person, the test should be rigged such that Blacks will score lower?
That's trivially easy but it proves nothing.
It proves the test is arbitrary, and not a measure of Racial Supremacy, as the OP suggested. You seem to be agreeing with my point, but disagreeing with my manner of presenting it.
Every NDA I've seen was undated. How long are they good for in practice? Are all the NDA's permanent, or only so far as the knowledge still would give an advantage? At least the military NDAs, though permanent, are tied to classification, so when something's unclassified, the NDA around it ends.
For 1980? That was admitted by the Republicans and Iranians. No conspiracy needed, just read the confessions. Why do you think that Ollie North went to jail? To protect The Party from the fallout of the illegal payments to Iran. Not only was the deal treason in 1980, but they followed through with the payment as a second treason. Just like G Gordon took one for the team for Watergate, the investigations into treason stop when someone goes to jail for a much lesser crime.
The Republicans paid the Iranians to commit acts of war in 1980 to sway the election to the warmonger party, why would this time be any different? If Iran attacks, it's probably as paid stooges for the Republicans.
So, human skin color determines other characteristics?
Human skin certainly determines the susceptibility to certain kinds of cancer. And skin color correlates well with incidence of sickle cell anemia. And skin color correlates well with salt sensitivity (for heart disease, not taste). Skin matters for lots. But it hasn't been shown to correlate for many other things. It seems reasonable to assume it will correlate with some physical characteristics (like gender and height), and mental characteristics. But so far, no conclusive links have been found. And lots of people have looked really hard.
Every IQ test shows that you can alter the test to make any identifiable group "smarter" than another, if you choose. Yes, you could make an IQ test that would show Black people smarter than whites.
And yes, genetics is linked to physical characteristics, but there's been no proven link between race and those characteristics. Short Chinese people is a myth. It's mostly a product of their lower protein diet, and not genetics, but a racist glancing at them who believes in eugenics would try to breed the short out of them, when it's not in their genes.
It's that type of bigoted racism that people knee jerk against. Test the poorest poor whites in rural West Virginia against the top 10% (money, not IQ) of Blacks and you'll find a random selection from those groups shows Blacks smarter than whites. So, then what's the issue? Race? Or quality of life? But no, pointing out that poor people test worse gets the assertion that being dumb makes one poor, when the tests more closely show that being poor causes being dumb.
So yes, there is some genetics in the brain, but if you are looking at the wrong numbers, you'll get the wrong conclusion, and look like a racist bigot at the same time.
I never said "attraction". It's about sex. Planned parenthood is about sex (or the consequences thereof).
Practicing homosexuals is 2% of the population. That was in a mainstream media newspaper. The number of gay characters on TV vastly exceeds that.
Only when you look at the number of gay characters in gay TV shows. How many gay characters are on the Simpsons? 1? Of a cast of hundreds or more? And he's not even officially out of the closet, just strongly indicated. How about on The Walking dead? 0 gay relationships right? Name any show that isn't deliberately casting and promoting a gay character (queer as folk, OITNB, Glee) and Modern Family is the only show I can think of that's running with a gay relationship that isn't used solely for comic relief. Total sum of all TV characters being gay? I'd guess it to be still well under the national average. Same as all the other minorities. TV works best pandering to the middle, and they are upper-lower class working families.
But the fact you are getting so worked up about it is why sex is used as a political wedge issue.
And in the UK a fabricator would be called an engineer, and an electrician is called an electrical engineer. The terms outside the US are more likely to align with the dictionary, rather than the US National Society of Professional Engineers' definition.
"engineer" outside the US wasn't sued into oblivion by professional engineering organizations.
The electrician I know from the UK has a certificate in "Electrical Engineering" that's essentially a certificate of attendance at a sparky school. Outside the US, I find engineer means the same as it did in the US in the 1800s. Tinkerer. No more. No less.
The problem isn't "engineer" being used for non-engineers, but the false idea that one must be a licensed engineer to be an engineer.
Wasn't there a term invented for the people who are really good at one thing, but they generalize that proficiency into other areas they aren't competent in?
I find that common in engineers. "I can design a flow valve, so obviously, I can run a computer" So the engineers at the oil company I dealt with were the IT department. And they had an IT department. The IT department spent more time cleaning up after then engineers than everything else combined. The first VM I ever saw was an engineer's machine who got a DOS VM something I don't know, and was running Win95 under it, because he could buy DOS, and modern machines still support DOS (some varieties) even to today, but the machine was too new for Win95. But the program he wanted to run was Win95 only. Rather than finding a machine that's capable of running Win 95, he hacked together win95 in VM on DOS. It ran for a while, hidden under his desk. But when he had left, someone who depended on it found it not working. So then there was an issue of fixing it, when nobody even knew what "it" was. The final fix was to update the software to a newer version that ran under modern windows. Turns out, the new versions ran fine, but the original engineer just hated a feature of the new version, so he did all that work to avoid an upgrade.
Engineers, worse than lawyers, but still not as bad as doctors.
"The suicide rate at Foxconn is less than an average American High School."
Compare it to a GM factory or some other American blue-collared industry and you'll see that for all the "prevention" Foxconn is truly dangerous.
Nope. Foxconn's suicide is not higher than US general suicide rates. I used those numbers to not get into a debate about how the Foxconn suicide rate is calculated. That and if that rate was so bad, why aren't we doing more in US schools? We aren't, which means we think that rate is acceptable, unless it's happening at Apple, and we hate Apple.
There is nothing that would prevent a redistributive model. It would just require that the tax on California be explicitly 1.5x the return. Or have the redistributive portion come out of the corporate or other taxes. The theory is that the feds should guide the states.
But to tax the people of the states at a federal level, then refund that tax to the states for the states to spend on state programs (like how some Medicaid works) would make the founding fathers say "You are doing it wrong". Why do we tax federally to refund that to the states? The states should tax locally and spend locally, and the feds can top up missing funds. The US was designed to have the states fight for power among themselves, with the feds to keep everyone playing nice. Instead, we got the feds fighting with the states, and the fed always wins, here and everywhere else it's been done, like the USSR (at least up until it broke up)..
Excuses? I'm excusing nothing, just pointing out your double-standard.
I suppose you think people shouldn't complain about things like government corruption because it could be worse in some other place.
No, you have it backwards. The hypocrisy is when we criticize everyone else, yet are no better, not when we criticize ourselves when someone else is worse. Can't you even make a basic analogy?
Slashdot Mirror
What rights do people have? Who makes that list? Who enforces that list?
Speech is a fundamental right. The Internet is the new press. The press was a right, they even called it the freedom of the press.
But being a right doesn't mean it must be provided.
Yet, so many people volunteer for slavery, I mean "unpaid internship".
My grandfather founded True Value Hardware (well, was one of the founding members, anyway). The last time I was in, I walked through the toy section (I walked through every section, but that's beside the point), and I noted that the toys on the shelf were pretty high priced. So I asked the manager (uncle, as gramps is not around anymore) what his buy price is for that toy. I pulled out my phone, and checked. It would be cheaper for True Value stores to buy retail from Wal-Mart than wholesale from the True Value distributor. And unlike some of the clothes and other items, the toys are actually identical between the two. The gap was large enough that the corporate buyers for True Value were likely paying retail or higher.
It's actually really hard for retailers. They eventually closed the store.
Apple is more profitable than Xiomi. The race to the bottom doesn't exist in the middle class and above. The race to the bottom only exists in the people who have the choice of the lowest quality cheapest item, or doing without. That we are growing the poor is the race to the bottom, not the ability to buy cheap things.
Sure but is it a race to the bottom?
Ah, an actual case of begging the question. You are assuming that a race to the bottom is a bad thing. Why is efficiency despised so much? Oh, the government is so inefficient. Oh no, even worse, the government did something efficient!
$1 isn't free, and if the request was for code that already exists, why wouldn't someone bid $1 to present the (already existing open source) code?
Though it was apparently done by a proper company, so now they have a "win" on their record, which makes it eaiser to win in the future (though not in the reverse auction system), and may help with things like funding.
That's trivially easy but it proves nothing.
It proves the test is arbitrary, and not a measure of Racial Supremacy, as the OP suggested. You seem to be agreeing with my point, but disagreeing with my manner of presenting it.
And probably still subject to NDA's.
Every NDA I've seen was undated. How long are they good for in practice? Are all the NDA's permanent, or only so far as the knowledge still would give an advantage? At least the military NDAs, though permanent, are tied to classification, so when something's unclassified, the NDA around it ends.
For 1980? That was admitted by the Republicans and Iranians. No conspiracy needed, just read the confessions. Why do you think that Ollie North went to jail? To protect The Party from the fallout of the illegal payments to Iran. Not only was the deal treason in 1980, but they followed through with the payment as a second treason. Just like G Gordon took one for the team for Watergate, the investigations into treason stop when someone goes to jail for a much lesser crime.
It's illegal to put fuel in your car without Ford's permission. And Ford charges $3 per gallon for permission.
The Republicans paid the Iranians to commit acts of war in 1980 to sway the election to the warmonger party, why would this time be any different? If Iran attacks, it's probably as paid stooges for the Republicans.
So, human skin color determines other characteristics?
Human skin certainly determines the susceptibility to certain kinds of cancer. And skin color correlates well with incidence of sickle cell anemia. And skin color correlates well with salt sensitivity (for heart disease, not taste). Skin matters for lots. But it hasn't been shown to correlate for many other things. It seems reasonable to assume it will correlate with some physical characteristics (like gender and height), and mental characteristics. But so far, no conclusive links have been found. And lots of people have looked really hard.
Every IQ test shows that you can alter the test to make any identifiable group "smarter" than another, if you choose. Yes, you could make an IQ test that would show Black people smarter than whites.
And yes, genetics is linked to physical characteristics, but there's been no proven link between race and those characteristics. Short Chinese people is a myth. It's mostly a product of their lower protein diet, and not genetics, but a racist glancing at them who believes in eugenics would try to breed the short out of them, when it's not in their genes.
It's that type of bigoted racism that people knee jerk against. Test the poorest poor whites in rural West Virginia against the top 10% (money, not IQ) of Blacks and you'll find a random selection from those groups shows Blacks smarter than whites. So, then what's the issue? Race? Or quality of life? But no, pointing out that poor people test worse gets the assertion that being dumb makes one poor, when the tests more closely show that being poor causes being dumb.
So yes, there is some genetics in the brain, but if you are looking at the wrong numbers, you'll get the wrong conclusion, and look like a racist bigot at the same time.
sexual attraction
I never said "attraction". It's about sex. Planned parenthood is about sex (or the consequences thereof).
Practicing homosexuals is 2% of the population. That was in a mainstream media newspaper. The number of gay characters on TV vastly exceeds that.
Only when you look at the number of gay characters in gay TV shows. How many gay characters are on the Simpsons? 1? Of a cast of hundreds or more? And he's not even officially out of the closet, just strongly indicated. How about on The Walking dead? 0 gay relationships right? Name any show that isn't deliberately casting and promoting a gay character (queer as folk, OITNB, Glee) and Modern Family is the only show I can think of that's running with a gay relationship that isn't used solely for comic relief. Total sum of all TV characters being gay? I'd guess it to be still well under the national average. Same as all the other minorities. TV works best pandering to the middle, and they are upper-lower class working families.
But the fact you are getting so worked up about it is why sex is used as a political wedge issue.
Well, if you include math as a science, then programming is software engineering, by the dictionary definition.
And in the UK a fabricator would be called an engineer, and an electrician is called an electrical engineer. The terms outside the US are more likely to align with the dictionary, rather than the US National Society of Professional Engineers' definition.
Is that for non-software engineers, or software engineers? I've found them similar for the behavior you describe.
"engineer" outside the US wasn't sued into oblivion by professional engineering organizations.
The electrician I know from the UK has a certificate in "Electrical Engineering" that's essentially a certificate of attendance at a sparky school. Outside the US, I find engineer means the same as it did in the US in the 1800s. Tinkerer. No more. No less.
The problem isn't "engineer" being used for non-engineers, but the false idea that one must be a licensed engineer to be an engineer.
I wish it was a mute point.
Wasn't there a term invented for the people who are really good at one thing, but they generalize that proficiency into other areas they aren't competent in?
I find that common in engineers. "I can design a flow valve, so obviously, I can run a computer" So the engineers at the oil company I dealt with were the IT department. And they had an IT department. The IT department spent more time cleaning up after then engineers than everything else combined. The first VM I ever saw was an engineer's machine who got a DOS VM something I don't know, and was running Win95 under it, because he could buy DOS, and modern machines still support DOS (some varieties) even to today, but the machine was too new for Win95. But the program he wanted to run was Win95 only. Rather than finding a machine that's capable of running Win 95, he hacked together win95 in VM on DOS. It ran for a while, hidden under his desk. But when he had left, someone who depended on it found it not working. So then there was an issue of fixing it, when nobody even knew what "it" was. The final fix was to update the software to a newer version that ran under modern windows. Turns out, the new versions ran fine, but the original engineer just hated a feature of the new version, so he did all that work to avoid an upgrade.
Engineers, worse than lawyers, but still not as bad as doctors.
For the same reason we don't call a car mechanic who specializes in engines an engineer.
It may be more appropriate to the word meaning in a strict sense, but less useful to the general conversation.
"The suicide rate at Foxconn is less than an average American High School."
Compare it to a GM factory or some other American blue-collared industry and you'll see that for all the "prevention" Foxconn is truly dangerous.
Nope. Foxconn's suicide is not higher than US general suicide rates. I used those numbers to not get into a debate about how the Foxconn suicide rate is calculated. That and if that rate was so bad, why aren't we doing more in US schools? We aren't, which means we think that rate is acceptable, unless it's happening at Apple, and we hate Apple.
There is nothing that would prevent a redistributive model. It would just require that the tax on California be explicitly 1.5x the return. Or have the redistributive portion come out of the corporate or other taxes. The theory is that the feds should guide the states.
But to tax the people of the states at a federal level, then refund that tax to the states for the states to spend on state programs (like how some Medicaid works) would make the founding fathers say "You are doing it wrong". Why do we tax federally to refund that to the states? The states should tax locally and spend locally, and the feds can top up missing funds. The US was designed to have the states fight for power among themselves, with the feds to keep everyone playing nice. Instead, we got the feds fighting with the states, and the fed always wins, here and everywhere else it's been done, like the USSR (at least up until it broke up)..
I suppose you think people shouldn't complain about things like government corruption because it could be worse in some other place.
No, you have it backwards. The hypocrisy is when we criticize everyone else, yet are no better, not when we criticize ourselves when someone else is worse. Can't you even make a basic analogy?