The term "sweatshop" really shouldn't apply to this sort of job regardless of the pay rate because no sweating is involved; it's quite comfortable work. Electronics assembly is a fantastic job by the standards of the region because it requires a clean, cool, well-lit, dust-free environment. As for the rate of pay, the number quoted was a bit higher than I expected and in any case quite excellent by comparison with what one can earn in the rural farming areas nearby where all these workers come from. These factories are improving the standard of living for many thousands of people and should be applauded.
The key is keeping alive long enough for new tech to appear. As long as the technology keeps being developed, we won't have to live at a Malthusian equilibrium. Faster technological development can be acquired by producing higher levels of education and research.
Or just by producing more people.
The more people there are, the faster good new ideas appear. Due to network effects, technological progress actually improves faster than linearly with population growth. More people means more people creating and inventing solutions to problems.
Lets say that I pay about $150/mo to heat my house using my natural gas furnace, which is stretching my budget. I've already spent all I can afford on making my energy use efficient, so I'm completely tapped out. Lets also assume that next month the prices skyrocket, so that using the same amount of gas, my bill is now $300/mo. At this point I have two options:
1) Freeze (I've already got the heat down as far as I can manage)
2) Use credit
(3) Stop heating an entire house and instead just heat one or two rooms; you can do this with a junk mail-burning fireplace or a small electric space heater.
Note: as gas gets more expensive more and more electricity will be provided from nukes, solar, whatever. So electricity won't get expensive as quickly as gas.
Videogames don't have to be sedentary. Dance Dance Revolution is aerobic exercise in the form of a game. Eyetoy:Kinetic is a solid fitness training program the bulk of which involves playing videogames. Youself!Fitness is a "game" that teaches you yoga and exercises every muscle you've got in more ways than you knew were possible.
Videogames also don't have to be socially isolating - regular MMORPG players certainly have more active social interaction than kids who spend all their time reading or watching TV...
Your post is a nice wrap-up and I agree with most of it but you do repeat one myth of your own. DDT has not been barred but rather is still being used in essentially all the areas where malaria is a problem. DDT is also much less effective today than in the past due to the emergence of insecticide-resistant bugs. Therefore it is used more selectively and in concert with other insecticides such as malathion. In short, it's not the panacea some make it out to be. Fun though it might be to blame lefties for killing millions with malaria due to their environmental paranoia, it's not a terribly accurate charge. linky.
Briefly, I realise this. I said "massive and sudden", not "explosive and catastrophic".
Even "massive and sudden" is unlikely. The plane's pressurization system is designed to handle a lot of leakage past door seals and the like and has a large safety margin; those who have run the numbers don't believe you could lose enough air through a few 1/2" holes to overcome that. It'd be noisy until somebody blocked the hole with a blanket or something, but the holes in the hull wouldn't affect the air pressure significantly in the cabin.
none of those people would have been trained in using a firearm in an airplane, let alone likely to be carrying appropriate ammunition (got your armor piercing bullets right here, yes siree!), so you're probably looking at explosive decompression and loss of plane in such a case.
If you fired a few rounds of inappropriate ammunition through a wall or window, the plane wouldn't even decompress, much less "explosively" do so. The half-inch hole would let a little air out but planes already have small holes in them leaking air; one or two more wouldn't make much difference. The fans blowing air in would just have to do a little more work than they normally do to keep up. It'd be noisy though. At least until somebody covered the hole with a book or something.
Incidentally, the "one shot explosive decompression" myth comes from the 1964 movie _Goldfinger_, and was busted in episode 10 of the Discovery show MythBusters.
I'm not again'st all guns on planes, but just owning a gun doesn't mean you can shoot it well enough to be safe in a small high tension area packed with people who may act unexpectadly. You may be good enough, but most people I know with weapons aren't(by their own admission).
Armed civilians almost never hit the wrong person. Despite less training, they have a much better record on this than do cops. The reason the civilian record is better is that armed civilians aren't required as part of their job to pull out a weapon and aim it any time there's a bad guy around; they have a choice in the matter. Anybody who is armed but "by their own admission" isn't good enough to deal with the situation at hand from where they are will naturally tend to hold back unless the situation is truly dire and nobody else is in a position to help, while people who are more highly trained and competent and in a better position to take action will tend to take action sooner.
So you don't really have to worry about people who are poorly prepared and know it. You also don't have to worry about those who are highly prepared. The only thing you have to worry about are people who are incompetent to judge their own incompetence at firearms - those who think they are good enough but actually aren't. The good news about that is that such people must be pretty rare or the civilian defense record would be a lot worse than it is.
If you're still worried, you could probably get 90% of the benefit of armed passengers by allowing the pilots, anyone who's ex-military, and anyone else with basic gun training to carry freely on an airplane.
Yeah, I'd feel real good knowing there might be dozens of potentially untrained gun-crazy yahoos...
I currently carry a small pocket knife on my keyring. That knife has been with me on dozens of flights without incident. Does that make me a "knife-crazy yahoo"? Imagine that knife were a gun; how would the result be any different? A weapon only comes into play if there's such a serious situation that it needs to come into play, in which case you want the most effective weapon available.
You might want to work on that hoplophobia of yours.
If you refuse to go thru the extra security check, you are a potential threat to the other passengers (who knows if you have a gun hidden somewhere?)
Or you might be a potential benefit, in that your concealed weapon could help the other passengers resist terrorists. It's not at all clear that barring weapons on planes does more good than harm, especially when you factor in the time cost of all those people wasting time standing in line or missing their planes. Not to mention the salaries of the inspectors and the cost of the scanning equipment.
Why does the airline have "a right to know who you are"? When I buy a hamburger, I'm under no obligation to present an ID; why is buying an airline ticket different?
Firefly == suck
[...]
Farscape == As far from suck as one can get. Nothing short of a masterpiece from beginning to end.
That's odd; I had the exact opposite impressions. Based on the DVDs I thought Firefly was the best TV show I'd ever seen in my life (though it lagged a little towards the end), and Farscape was so bad I couldn't stand to watch more than the first DVD. Farscape reminded me of those cheesy seventies kiddie shows like "Jason of Star Command". Really dumb plots, reasonably dumb one-note characters, cheap-looking Dr. Who-caliber sets. Does it get better later on? How many bad Farscape episodes does one have to slog through to get to the good ones?
A million people a year die of malaria-- deaths that could easily be prevented by application of small amounts of DDT.
You might want to reread that wikipedia article yourself. Uncontrolled agricultural use of DDT increases malaria incidence because it contributes to DDT resistance. Most of the countries that "ban DDT" still use it for mosquito abatement, they just don't use it on crops.
The common claim that environmentalist concerns causes ongoing excess malaria deaths by way of a DDT ban is false. Yes, there are nuts who have made hysterical nonscientific claims about DDT and yes, government health officials have been stupid in the past, but they weren't so willfully stupid in this case as to do what their critics imply.
I call bullshit on the kid finishing high school in 9 months.[...]The sheer volume of information that you're exposed to would require him to be a speed reader...
Are you serious? I'm sure he reads faster than you, but I don't believe he'd need to read implausibly fast to do that. I remember high school as a ridiculous waste of time as far as efficiently imparting information. 9 months is only about a 4:1 compression - that's doable.
Sure, a typical US high school takes 4 years, but with winter and summer breaks there's only about 9 months of instruction per year, and even of that the first month or so is generally wasted review. For most classes there is a book that covers essentially the same material as the lectures. The book was written and edited by somebody much smarter than your teacher and covers more material. Sometimes the textbook is bad too, but you can find a better book at the local library. If you are good at reading and understanding written arguments, the lecture is a complete waste of time if you read the relevant book and work through a few exercises. The class is generally paced so that the dumbest student in the room should be able to keep up, which means the smartest student in the room could learn at least 4 times faster. And this one did - good for him!
By what metric is Canada "armed to the teeth"? It's certainly less so than the US.
I've never owned a gun, I'm just saying I'd personally feel safer if more people carried them. Including on airplanes. In response to your query.
Regarding "early 90s data", it seems like a point in my favor that all crime rates - including homicide rates - have been continually declining in the US relative to crime rates in the UK. If you think guns make us unsafe, it's hard to explain that.
No, the primary argument for guns is that they are an equalizer - they allow people who are physically small, or female, or handicapped, or old, to defend themselves from criminals. "tackling" is not an option when the attacker outweighs you by over a hundred pounds; "shooting" still is. One woman can easily scare off a rapist or mugger with a gun. Guns might not make/you/ safer, but they make women safer. So if you want a reasonable compromise, make it legal for/women/ to carry guns anywhere and everywhere. "guns make people safer" clearly isn't "a falacy" when applied to women.
The percentage of people victimized by assault is about twice as high in the UK as the US. the percentage victimized by rape is also about twice as high. Burglaries per capita are about twice as high too. Yeah, homicide is still higher in the US, but total crime victimization is significantly worse in the UK.
As a law-abiding citizen, I don't care whether criminals have guns, I care whether I'm likely to be a victim of a crime and whether I can feel safe walking the streets at night. Currently the US is safer than the UK by those measurements - prevalence or lack of guns notwithstanding.
guns should not be allowed on airplanes, if only for the reason that they would cause a rapid depressurization unless special shattering bullets are used.
I'm sorry, but that would of yours is just nonsense. It is highly unlikely a bullet fired on an airplane would cause rapid depressurization. A few bullet-sized holes wouldn't lose air faster than the plane's pressurization control system can put more in. Hearing damage to the people nearby is a more significant concern. Here's a nice FAQ on the subject.
(I'll grant that it happens in the movies, mind you. But movie physics is not real-world physics.)
One can justify guns in such a setting because the benefits - protection against bad guys - outweigh the cost - risk from stupid guys. Just like a pocketknife, guns have a very very low probability of accidentally leaping out of somebody's pocket and being used with malevolence. If a gun is being used, there's probably a reason for it, and in most situations where there's a reason for it you're better off having the gun there than not.
One could imagine a world in which the laws of physics made gun use on modern airplanes a catastrophically bad idea, but that isn't the world we actually live in.
To respond to the "question for gun advocates" in your signature, I think it would be a fine idea if we left it up to the airlines to decide their own policy, and I personally would feel much safer and less aggravated if airlines didn't search for guns or knives. Also, for what it's worth, I carry a pocketknife on my keychain and often have it with me when I get on an airplane. The current don't-carry-a-blade restrictions are (a) an annoying waste of time, and (b) totally ineffective at their stated purpose.
They are somewhat more effective at their unstated purpose, which seems to be to make citizens feel like authorities "are doing something" about a perceived problem.
MediaWatch, a non-partisan media watchdog, actually found Fox viewers were MORE IGNORANT (that is, more likely to get current events questions wrong) than people WHO DID NOT WATCH THE NEWS. You actually become less informed by watching Fox!
That's an odd slant to put on that finding. "News" programs have very little information content and the focus on what's immediate "breaking news" means there's rarely time to put a story in context or be sure the initial slant is correct. TV news programs rarely revisit past issues, so what regular viewers are left with is a first impression rather than a deep understanding of any topic. For all these reasons, I'd expect people who regularly watch the news to make more errors in the form of believing incorrect conventional wisdom within their peer group on various subjects than people who don't. Of course, they'll also believe more correct conventional wisdom, but I doubt the surveys asked any questions intended to discover this fact. This applies to all TV news programs, not just Fox.
MediaWatch also (if I recall correctly) interpreted as "ignorance" the holding of some opinions that were at least debatably correct and asked questions with a framing bias such that conservatives were likely to give the "wrong" answer.
Gaming is quickly becoming just another thing that "cool" people do. What will we nerds come up with next?
Don't know about anyone else, but my answer? Powerisers! Bounce around town for a bit - you'll get the strangest looks. And if that ever catches on with the masses I'm sure I'll be able to find something else that's just as weird.
There's also using videogames to get in shape, as per my.sig - that hasn't really caught on yet either, the success of DDR notwithstanding...
How are stepping, hopping, and pedaling a bicycle not "real activity"?
Personally, the main thing I don't like about home video games is feeling like a couch potato - sitting in one place for hours on end using only thumb and finger muscles. Using a Kilowatt or a DDR pad makes gaming feel more productive, in that you can exercise your brain and your body at the same time.
And you don't have to track calories if you don't want to. But hey, different strokes. It's not like I'm opposed to riding bikes or jogging or whatever...
Slashdot Mirror
The term "sweatshop" really shouldn't apply to this sort of job regardless of the pay rate because no sweating is involved; it's quite comfortable work. Electronics assembly is a fantastic job by the standards of the region because it requires a clean, cool, well-lit, dust-free environment. As for the rate of pay, the number quoted was a bit higher than I expected and in any case quite excellent by comparison with what one can earn in the rural farming areas nearby where all these workers come from. These factories are improving the standard of living for many thousands of people and should be applauded.
(Yes, I've worked at factories like this.)
Such as that videogames can help you get fit? So far that project is going okay, as far as the New York Times is concerned...
(That was a mirror; the original is behind their firewall here)
Full disclosure: I'm featured in the article. :-)
The more people there are, the faster good new ideas appear. Due to network effects, technological progress actually improves faster than linearly with population growth. More people means more people creating and inventing solutions to problems.
Note: as gas gets more expensive more and more electricity will be provided from nukes, solar, whatever. So electricity won't get expensive as quickly as gas.
Videogames also don't have to be socially isolating - regular MMORPG players certainly have more active social interaction than kids who spend all their time reading or watching TV...
Your post is a nice wrap-up and I agree with most of it but you do repeat one myth of your own. DDT has not been barred but rather is still being used in essentially all the areas where malaria is a problem. DDT is also much less effective today than in the past due to the emergence of insecticide-resistant bugs. Therefore it is used more selectively and in concert with other insecticides such as malathion. In short, it's not the panacea some make it out to be. Fun though it might be to blame lefties for killing millions with malaria due to their environmental paranoia, it's not a terribly accurate charge. linky.
More here.
Incidentally, the "one shot explosive decompression" myth comes from the 1964 movie _Goldfinger_, and was busted in episode 10 of the Discovery show MythBusters.
So you don't really have to worry about people who are poorly prepared and know it. You also don't have to worry about those who are highly prepared. The only thing you have to worry about are people who are incompetent to judge their own incompetence at firearms - those who think they are good enough but actually aren't. The good news about that is that such people must be pretty rare or the civilian defense record would be a lot worse than it is.
If you're still worried, you could probably get 90% of the benefit of armed passengers by allowing the pilots, anyone who's ex-military, and anyone else with basic gun training to carry freely on an airplane.
You might want to work on that hoplophobia of yours.
Why does the airline have "a right to know who you are"? When I buy a hamburger, I'm under no obligation to present an ID; why is buying an airline ticket different?
You might want to reread that wikipedia article yourself. Uncontrolled agricultural use of DDT increases malaria incidence because it contributes to DDT resistance. Most of the countries that "ban DDT" still use it for mosquito abatement, they just don't use it on crops.
The common claim that environmentalist concerns causes ongoing excess malaria deaths by way of a DDT ban is false. Yes, there are nuts who have made hysterical nonscientific claims about DDT and yes, government health officials have been stupid in the past, but they weren't so willfully stupid in this case as to do what their critics imply.
Sure, a typical US high school takes 4 years, but with winter and summer breaks there's only about 9 months of instruction per year, and even of that the first month or so is generally wasted review. For most classes there is a book that covers essentially the same material as the lectures. The book was written and edited by somebody much smarter than your teacher and covers more material. Sometimes the textbook is bad too, but you can find a better book at the local library. If you are good at reading and understanding written arguments, the lecture is a complete waste of time if you read the relevant book and work through a few exercises. The class is generally paced so that the dumbest student in the room should be able to keep up, which means the smartest student in the room could learn at least 4 times faster. And this one did - good for him!
She's a terror on In The Groove and D-D-R;
It's the little old lady from Pasadena...
I've never owned a gun, I'm just saying I'd personally feel safer if more people carried them. Including on airplanes. In response to your query.
Regarding "early 90s data", it seems like a point in my favor that all crime rates - including homicide rates - have been continually declining in the US relative to crime rates in the UK. If you think guns make us unsafe, it's hard to explain that.
The percentage of people victimized by assault is about twice as high in the UK as the US. the percentage victimized by rape is also about twice as high. Burglaries per capita are about twice as high too. Yeah, homicide is still higher in the US, but total crime victimization is significantly worse in the UK.
As a law-abiding citizen, I don't care whether criminals have guns, I care whether I'm likely to be a victim of a crime and whether I can feel safe walking the streets at night. Currently the US is safer than the UK by those measurements - prevalence or lack of guns notwithstanding.
I'm sorry, but that would of yours is just nonsense. It is highly unlikely a bullet fired on an airplane would cause rapid depressurization. A few bullet-sized holes wouldn't lose air faster than the plane's pressurization control system can put more in. Hearing damage to the people nearby is a more significant concern. Here's a nice FAQ on the subject.
(I'll grant that it happens in the movies, mind you. But movie physics is not real-world physics.)
One can justify guns in such a setting because the benefits - protection against bad guys - outweigh the cost - risk from stupid guys. Just like a pocketknife, guns have a very very low probability of accidentally leaping out of somebody's pocket and being used with malevolence. If a gun is being used, there's probably a reason for it, and in most situations where there's a reason for it you're better off having the gun there than not.
One could imagine a world in which the laws of physics made gun use on modern airplanes a catastrophically bad idea, but that isn't the world we actually live in.
They are somewhat more effective at their unstated purpose, which seems to be to make citizens feel like authorities "are doing something" about a perceived problem.
MediaWatch also (if I recall correctly) interpreted as "ignorance" the holding of some opinions that were at least debatably correct and asked questions with a framing bias such that conservatives were likely to give the "wrong" answer.
There's also using videogames to get in shape, as per my .sig - that hasn't really caught on yet either, the success of DDR notwithstanding...
Personally, the main thing I don't like about home video games is feeling like a couch potato - sitting in one place for hours on end using only thumb and finger muscles. Using a Kilowatt or a DDR pad makes gaming feel more productive, in that you can exercise your brain and your body at the same time.
And you don't have to track calories if you don't want to. But hey, different strokes. It's not like I'm opposed to riding bikes or jogging or whatever...