If you read the article, it points out that a lot of the charity money buys Google. Getting tax breaks to get people to buy your stuff is good business for somebody...
I'll say it again -- if it's not worth a living wage to an employer, it's not worth doing.
You should change your statement to "if it's not worth a living wage to an employer, the employer has no right to employ someone to do it." That is at least a cogent argument. One I disagree with, but at least it's logically sound.
Otherwise your statement means the following is true: "Paying someone to do my laundry is not worth a living wage to me, so my laundry is not worth doing. I'll have to buy new clothes I guess."
I agree with you to a point, but my point was "to an employer", which I meant in a somewhat abstract sense: the "employer" does nothing, only "employees" do things. You can of course be an employee of your own company.
Even then, this is all a little angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin, because in only a very small business would unwaged directors take ultra-low-value work on simply because they can't afford workers to do it.
A worker who does not earn a living wage will probably die. If you believe in economic Darwinianism to that extreme, why not cut out the middleman and just cull them all, rather than giving them a wage that sees them slowly lose their health and die prematurely anyway? Isn't a non-living wage just drawing out the suffering for them?
Or maybe they will have the time to cull the politicians who tax the crap out of everything and double the cost of living in the USA.
Workers who receive a pittance as a wage typically have no time to do anything, because they work longer and longer hours simply trying to make enough money to live off. That's the whole point of the term "wage slave" -- you end up living simply to work.
I'll say it again -- if it's not worth a living wage to an employer, it's not worth doing. This sort of stuff reeks of Googlenomics: "but our disruptive business model doesn't work if you make us pay for what we use."
Your problems are a direct result of successive governments following a market model, breaking the NHS into trusts, making GP practices into self-contained business, and giving each fixed budgets to work with. It's part of a deliberate process of privatisation that is slowly making the NHS more and more like the dysfunctional US system.
Any business which cannot pay a living wage deserves to fail
So that means that any worker who cannot produce enough to earn a "living wage" deserves to be unemployed?
A worker who does not earn a living wage will probably die. If you believe in economic Darwinianism to that extreme, why not cut out the middleman and just cull them all, rather than giving them a wage that sees them slowly lose their health and die prematurely anyway? Isn't a non-living wage just drawing out the suffering for them?
But insinuating that people are owed a living wage simply because they are breathing is ridiculous. I want to live in a society where everyone, regardless of their mistakes, has a decent life, but that doesn't mean it has to come from their employer.
Which is different from stating that anyone who performs productive work has a right to earn enough to live off. If the work isn't of enough value to the employer to pay a living wage, then it isn't worth doing at all.
I don't think anyone has a problem with universities having participation payments below minimum wage -- it's the commercial entities exploiting people for profit that we object to.
Exploitative labor practices eventually affect us all.
Over regulation and top-down control also affect us all. A government attempt to turn turkers into regular W-2 employees will likely just lead to elimination of these jobs, or offshoring. Just because you don't want this type of work, doesn't mean it isn't right for people that are stuck at home caring for an elderly parent, or have disabilities such as autism that make it hard to hold a normal job but easy to focus on detailed repetitive tasks.
Yes, but the existence of overregulation implies the existence of an optimal level of regulation, and wages are one place where regulation has historically worked. Before minimum wage legislation, there was unions, and before unions there were workers dying of malnutrition and exhaustion at work. This wasn't really great for anyone in society at all, and caused a lot of civil unrest.
Minimum wages sort all that out.
As for your justification, someone who's stuck at home caring for a sick relative surely deserves a chance to make enough money to eat, surely?
Yes, but doing that isn't "code reuse". It is copy-pasting code, just that you do it after compilation at the linking stage. It has some advantage to the programmer, but for the binary the end-result is the same.
Copy-paste is NOT what good programmers consider code reuse.
It is code reuse, and to suggest otherwise is a bit baffling. To say it's not best practice is different. It's also ignoring that at least one major software platform doesn't allow dynamic linking except to OS-provided library functions: iOS.
And flipping that around if you live in an apartment or townhouse complex and your Note 7 did catch the place on fire, your neighbors would be well within their rights to sue you into a financial hole so deep you'd never get out of it.
Honestly I doubt very much they would. Statistically the Note 7 probably isn't nearly as great a fire risk as your average candle, or any of those cheap Chinese vape devices, to say nothing of your typical hot plate, rice cooker etc. All things that are generally permitted in residential buildings.
Why? Because the Note 7 is a proven fire risk that the manufacturer is doing everything it can to ensure that people return and you're ignoring that. I bet your insurance would decline coverage in that case as well.
I would actually be pretty surprised if they could skate on that one. Its possible, but there would be law suits.
It has been subject to a well-publicised recall. Even if it's not the highest fire risk on the planet, it has still been deemed defective -- declared unsafe.
The recall notice has been in effect for aaaaaaaaaaaages now. No-one should still have a Note 7 in their pocket -- to do so is negligence on the consumer's part.
Apparently "trip" has a positive connotation for you....
Not really. I had serious social issues as a child, and trips were pretty scary. But they were part of my development, for better or for worse.
And when it comes to really young kids, they'd often be happier with a DVD they've watched a dozen times than the very latest thing, so I reckon the only bonus in a cinema ticket is the sense of "event" that comes along with it.
Perhaps, but for all the hassle and inconvenience, a trip to the flicks is still a "trip". Do you really want to train your kids to spend their entire lives inside the same four walls?
I just realized they they are trying to make up revenue from the loss of at least 3 movie tickets (i.e. 2 adults and a child). So $25 to $35 wouldn't be that bad for a family. I do think that $50 would be too much, though.
They don't need to make up all the revenue per ticket, as they should get additional viewers who would not come to the theater. Plush they could theoretically eliminate some overhead like less theater cleaning, etc.
Theater costs are the theaters' problem, not the studio. And the reason the snacks and drinks are so expensive is that most of the ticket cost goes to the studio and the distributors -- the "extras" are basically the main source of income for the theaters.
Ceremonial armour is still worn by people though, and people don't change size between time of war and ceremonies. Even if the ceremonial armour was made of smaller, lighter sections, you can still see from the geometry of the armour the size of the person it was designed for.
Not that I'm supporting Trump (he's more evil than Cthulhu, almost as bad as Hillary), but have you noticed how those 30ish women who accused him of sexual assault all went silent the moment the election was over? Shouldn't they be trying to bring him to justice? Maybe, just maybe, it was all staged false accusations as certain people like this kind of methods? See Assange, or what esr was tipped about.
Do you have any reason to believe the accusations have actually been dropped, as opposed to just "not being in the papers every day"?
Team movies have mostly failed until recently, which is why the success of the X-Men and the Avengers was such a surprise to everyone.
The success of movies based on some of the most popular young-adult fantasy properties in the world was a surprise... to everyone?
And where were you for Seven Samurai, the Magnificent Seven, the Italian Job, Heat, the entire Fast & Furious series, Power Rangers, all the Star Wars movies, Reservoir Dogs, just about any movie set in any real-life war, Team America and all the movies it was parodying, Ocean's 11 and pretty much any other heist movie ever made, etc etc...
Yes, it was a surprise, because it went far beyond comic readers.
The Seven Samurai is eastern, and it's all redemption. The Magnificent Seven was a remake of it, and was successful due to being different. There was a rash of clones (Dirty Dozen etc) but they weren't "team" movies, they were people-dying-movies. the Italian Job is about Michael Caine's character, and his struggle. The Power Rangers is kids' TV, and kids TV gives multiple shallow characters to potentially identify with, rather than one strong character. Team America was about the newbie, as were most of the films it parodied.
4. The good outcome will be something leftwing, and the villain will be defeated in-part by some failing of his/her rightwing ideology.
Left-wing and right-wing are overused and meaningless terms. In the traditional sense, there are many things that aren't either right-wing or left-wing. Liberalism (note: not libertarianism) is not left-wing -- the idea that the individual is the most important favours neither the elites (right wing) or the masses (left-wing). In fact, liberalism is fundamentally more right-wing than left-wing, as commercialism enables freedom of choice more than the social norms of a collectivised society does.
And that is what Hollywood goes for in the end -- the triumph of the individual. The individual may triumph over an enemy state (Sean Connory's submarine captain vs USSR: Hunt for Red October); representatives of the USA (Enemy of the State); a corporation; the Dark Lord of Mordor; a natural disaster; an industrial accident; a war... whatever.
It's an old standard in fiction, but Hollywood has focused on it almost exclusively. Team movies have mostly failed until recently, which is why the success of the X-Men and the Avengers was such a surprise to everyone.
That was my first thought, then I watched the trailer -- this might actually be a perfect role for him. They're placing him as a Jobs-esque stage speaker, and his acting may not be great acting, but it seems to work as a stage speaker style. I just hope there aren't many scenes where he isn't on stage.
False equivalences? How so? Debate requires demonstrating why someone is wrong, not just saying "you're wrong" and leaving it at that.
Regardless, today it's the jihadis...
You were the one who started talking about history. You can't fob off my arguments about history just by telling me that history is unimportant when your argument was based on history just two messages up.
And in what world am I "shitting" on you? I'm having a debate -- words. These cause you no harm, and you are free to disagree with them. Why make it personal?
Slashdot Mirror
Your story doesn't sound exactly kosher....
If you read the article, it points out that a lot of the charity money buys Google. Getting tax breaks to get people to buy your stuff is good business for somebody...
I'll say it again -- if it's not worth a living wage to an employer, it's not worth doing.
You should change your statement to "if it's not worth a living wage to an employer, the employer has no right to employ someone to do it." That is at least a cogent argument. One I disagree with, but at least it's logically sound.
Otherwise your statement means the following is true: "Paying someone to do my laundry is not worth a living wage to me, so my laundry is not worth doing. I'll have to buy new clothes I guess."
I agree with you to a point, but my point was "to an employer", which I meant in a somewhat abstract sense: the "employer" does nothing, only "employees" do things. You can of course be an employee of your own company.
Even then, this is all a little angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin, because in only a very small business would unwaged directors take ultra-low-value work on simply because they can't afford workers to do it.
A worker who does not earn a living wage will probably die. If you believe in economic Darwinianism to that extreme, why not cut out the middleman and just cull them all, rather than giving them a wage that sees them slowly lose their health and die prematurely anyway? Isn't a non-living wage just drawing out the suffering for them?
Or maybe they will have the time to cull the politicians who tax the crap out of everything and double the cost of living in the USA.
Workers who receive a pittance as a wage typically have no time to do anything, because they work longer and longer hours simply trying to make enough money to live off. That's the whole point of the term "wage slave" -- you end up living simply to work.
I'll say it again -- if it's not worth a living wage to an employer, it's not worth doing. This sort of stuff reeks of Googlenomics: "but our disruptive business model doesn't work if you make us pay for what we use."
Your problems are a direct result of successive governments following a market model, breaking the NHS into trusts, making GP practices into self-contained business, and giving each fixed budgets to work with. It's part of a deliberate process of privatisation that is slowly making the NHS more and more like the dysfunctional US system.
Any business which cannot pay a living wage deserves to fail
So that means that any worker who cannot produce enough to earn a "living wage" deserves to be unemployed?
A worker who does not earn a living wage will probably die. If you believe in economic Darwinianism to that extreme, why not cut out the middleman and just cull them all, rather than giving them a wage that sees them slowly lose their health and die prematurely anyway? Isn't a non-living wage just drawing out the suffering for them?
But insinuating that people are owed a living wage simply because they are breathing is ridiculous. I want to live in a society where everyone, regardless of their mistakes, has a decent life, but that doesn't mean it has to come from their employer.
Which is different from stating that anyone who performs productive work has a right to earn enough to live off. If the work isn't of enough value to the employer to pay a living wage, then it isn't worth doing at all.
I don't think anyone has a problem with universities having participation payments below minimum wage -- it's the commercial entities exploiting people for profit that we object to.
Exploitative labor practices eventually affect us all.
Over regulation and top-down control also affect us all. A government attempt to turn turkers into regular W-2 employees will likely just lead to elimination of these jobs, or offshoring. Just because you don't want this type of work, doesn't mean it isn't right for people that are stuck at home caring for an elderly parent, or have disabilities such as autism that make it hard to hold a normal job but easy to focus on detailed repetitive tasks.
Yes, but the existence of overregulation implies the existence of an optimal level of regulation, and wages are one place where regulation has historically worked. Before minimum wage legislation, there was unions, and before unions there were workers dying of malnutrition and exhaustion at work. This wasn't really great for anyone in society at all, and caused a lot of civil unrest.
Minimum wages sort all that out.
As for your justification, someone who's stuck at home caring for a sick relative surely deserves a chance to make enough money to eat, surely?
Ack, vain people are easily flattered. Vane people change their minds with the merest zephyr.
...or something in that vein. ;-)
Yes, but doing that isn't "code reuse". It is copy-pasting code, just that you do it after compilation at the linking stage. It has some advantage to the programmer, but for the binary the end-result is the same. Copy-paste is NOT what good programmers consider code reuse.
It is code reuse, and to suggest otherwise is a bit baffling. To say it's not best practice is different. It's also ignoring that at least one major software platform doesn't allow dynamic linking except to OS-provided library functions: iOS.
And flipping that around if you live in an apartment or townhouse complex and your Note 7 did catch the place on fire, your neighbors would be well within their rights to sue you into a financial hole so deep you'd never get out of it.
Honestly I doubt very much they would. Statistically the Note 7 probably isn't nearly as great a fire risk as your average candle, or any of those cheap Chinese vape devices, to say nothing of your typical hot plate, rice cooker etc. All things that are generally permitted in residential buildings.
Why? Because the Note 7 is a proven fire risk that the manufacturer is doing everything it can to ensure that people return and you're ignoring that. I bet your insurance would decline coverage in that case as well.
I would actually be pretty surprised if they could skate on that one. Its possible, but there would be law suits.
It has been subject to a well-publicised recall. Even if it's not the highest fire risk on the planet, it has still been deemed defective -- declared unsafe.
The recall notice has been in effect for aaaaaaaaaaaages now. No-one should still have a Note 7 in their pocket -- to do so is negligence on the consumer's part.
Apparently "trip" has a positive connotation for you....
Not really. I had serious social issues as a child, and trips were pretty scary. But they were part of my development, for better or for worse.
And when it comes to really young kids, they'd often be happier with a DVD they've watched a dozen times than the very latest thing, so I reckon the only bonus in a cinema ticket is the sense of "event" that comes along with it.
Very good point... very sorry for being a bit of an ass!
Perhaps, but for all the hassle and inconvenience, a trip to the flicks is still a "trip". Do you really want to train your kids to spend their entire lives inside the same four walls?
I just realized they they are trying to make up revenue from the loss of at least 3 movie tickets (i.e. 2 adults and a child). So $25 to $35 wouldn't be that bad for a family. I do think that $50 would be too much, though.
They don't need to make up all the revenue per ticket, as they should get additional viewers who would not come to the theater. Plush they could theoretically eliminate some overhead like less theater cleaning, etc.
Theater costs are the theaters' problem, not the studio. And the reason the snacks and drinks are so expensive is that most of the ticket cost goes to the studio and the distributors -- the "extras" are basically the main source of income for the theaters.
Ceremonial armour is still worn by people though, and people don't change size between time of war and ceremonies. Even if the ceremonial armour was made of smaller, lighter sections, you can still see from the geometry of the armour the size of the person it was designed for.
Not that I'm supporting Trump (he's more evil than Cthulhu, almost as bad as Hillary), but have you noticed how those 30ish women who accused him of sexual assault all went silent the moment the election was over? Shouldn't they be trying to bring him to justice? Maybe, just maybe, it was all staged false accusations as certain people like this kind of methods? See Assange, or what esr was tipped about.
Do you have any reason to believe the accusations have actually been dropped, as opposed to just "not being in the papers every day"?
Team movies have mostly failed until recently, which is why the success of the X-Men and the Avengers was such a surprise to everyone.
The success of movies based on some of the most popular young-adult fantasy properties in the world was a surprise ... to everyone?
And where were you for Seven Samurai, the Magnificent Seven, the Italian Job, Heat, the entire Fast & Furious series, Power Rangers, all the Star Wars movies, Reservoir Dogs, just about any movie set in any real-life war, Team America and all the movies it was parodying, Ocean's 11 and pretty much any other heist movie ever made, etc etc ...
Yes, it was a surprise, because it went far beyond comic readers. The Seven Samurai is eastern, and it's all redemption. The Magnificent Seven was a remake of it, and was successful due to being different. There was a rash of clones (Dirty Dozen etc) but they weren't "team" movies, they were people-dying-movies. the Italian Job is about Michael Caine's character, and his struggle. The Power Rangers is kids' TV, and kids TV gives multiple shallow characters to potentially identify with, rather than one strong character. Team America was about the newbie, as were most of the films it parodied.
4. The good outcome will be something leftwing, and the villain will be defeated in-part by some failing of his/her rightwing ideology.
Left-wing and right-wing are overused and meaningless terms. In the traditional sense, there are many things that aren't either right-wing or left-wing. Liberalism (note: not libertarianism) is not left-wing -- the idea that the individual is the most important favours neither the elites (right wing) or the masses (left-wing). In fact, liberalism is fundamentally more right-wing than left-wing, as commercialism enables freedom of choice more than the social norms of a collectivised society does.
And that is what Hollywood goes for in the end -- the triumph of the individual. The individual may triumph over an enemy state (Sean Connory's submarine captain vs USSR: Hunt for Red October); representatives of the USA (Enemy of the State); a corporation; the Dark Lord of Mordor; a natural disaster; an industrial accident; a war... whatever.
It's an old standard in fiction, but Hollywood has focused on it almost exclusively. Team movies have mostly failed until recently, which is why the success of the X-Men and the Avengers was such a surprise to everyone.
He couldn't act his way out of a nutsack
Stay strong, Mr. Hanky.
That was my first thought, then I watched the trailer -- this might actually be a perfect role for him. They're placing him as a Jobs-esque stage speaker, and his acting may not be great acting, but it seems to work as a stage speaker style. I just hope there aren't many scenes where he isn't on stage.
I do not believe the GP meant to indicate any support for the usage, just comment on what it was.
Regardless, today it's the jihadis...
You were the one who started talking about history. You can't fob off my arguments about history just by telling me that history is unimportant when your argument was based on history just two messages up.
And in what world am I "shitting" on you? I'm having a debate -- words. These cause you no harm, and you are free to disagree with them. Why make it personal?