Reading these "OMG exploitation" posts makes me wonder what land of Unicorns and Ponies some of you live in, and how I can arrange travel to visit such a place.
Let's start with the premise that these poor workers are abused and exploited and work back to a solution to the problem. And I mean "problem" in a way similar to how gravity is a problem because when I throw a knife in the air it can land pointy side down in my eyeball.
First, let's just say he pays them "fair" wages. Say...75% of what a US employee would make. Suddenly he can't compete because his prices are higher than his competitors'. Also, at that point why wouldn't he just open a factory in the US? Much more reliable infrastructure, huge local market, etc... Once he does that these "poor workers" are worse off. Now instead of shitty job they have _no_ job and are farming dirt on a shit farm.
OK, so we can't trust this exploiter. So maybe we argue China should enforce fair labor laws. So China goes and does this, now it costs 5X as much to make stuff as it does in India, or Pakistan, or any other hellhole. Companies leave. Or maybe at that point, again, it's more profitable now to build in the US or Europe. Net effect is those poor oppressed Chinese laborers are making $0 an hour instead of $1.20 an hour. You sure helped them out!
Really, come back to reality. People in overpopulated, developing countries have shit lives and even shitty, underpaid jobs increase their standard of living greatly. The more you bleeding hard idiots try to "help" them the more fucked they will be.
You seem to be arguing from a perspective other than reality. We can't hold any of them accountable for anything, we're in no position to do any such thing. Sure, we're a big market for them but they are growing far faster than we are and they are a huge market for us as well.
Exactly, was going to post something similar. This should be a driver for us to get better at manufacturing efficiencies, not get into a trade war we can't even possibly come close to winning.
I think smartphones need to go back to basics. I'd take a smartphone that lasted 4 days of normal use on a single charge anytime over a new one that does shit I don't really need anyway 10% (or even 30%) faster.
Once they've got battery life back under control, get back on performance.
Lol. Stealing..embezzlement, huh? I can only assume you were on the investigative board, right? I mean you seem to know so much and use such dramatic language.
Citation needed.
All I saw was a report of something like an inaccurate expense report. This could be as simple as mislabeling expense reports which are valid but trying to hide or shift money from one name to another to prevent notice.
Ahh. You think I'm some conservative dummy, and you're arguing against one in your head.
I vacillate between hating left wing douches and right wing dipshits more on any given day. I am pro gun rights, which is about all I have in common with "conservatives". I'm also for fiscal conservativeness but more neo-cons aren't and just claim to be and ballooned the size of the government massively. I mock the conservative's cowardly fear of terrorism to the extent they'd sell out our core American values due to this fear. I despise religion. Patriotism beyond practical patriotism is something you use to keep dumb people in line, and I mock flag-wrapped, teary eyed conservative jingoism.
The truth is English is English. Words and sentences have meaning. You don't get to suddenly pretend maybe something that's parenthetical isn't because it happens to go counter to your agenda.
I do recognize your claim that the statement in question is unique. I dismiss that this is meaningful or needs special attention, unless one has an obvious agenda against gun rights - in which case I'm sure it does. The phrase "bear arms" only shows up once too, Oh Teh Noes! It must mean something, amirite?!
Your fake interpretation doesn't even make sense, why would the second amendment even exist based on this interpretation? The others give we, the people, rights the government must recognize. Oh, except the second one.. It actually gives, what, the fucking government the right to regulate and arm militias? Seriously? You want to play "one of these things doesn't belong", that's a serious one.
You know you won't get our gun rights legitimately by having the Constitution amended so you're applying some transparently sophistic argument and pretending maybe we can take the "living document" approach and reinterpret the English language.
I'm only 90% convinced you know what a parenthetical phrase is. 10% says you don't understand, but 90% says you do and are just playing dumb because of your agenda. Note also that commas do not define it.
Fundamentally the constitution defines the rights of the people and the limits to power of the government. You can, of course, remove the "militia" clause and the sentence, in that scope, means exactly the same thing.
Why do I need to name another meaningless parenthetical statement in the Constitution? What rules exactly are you applying here? You seem to be applying a "it fits my agenda, so I'm going to assume that since there's one instance of a parenthetical phrase in the bill of rights I will pretend it's not parenthetical" rule of some sort.
It doesn't matter if there are 50 instances or 1 instance - English is English. That parenthetical phrase does not accomplish anything, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" does. See, that's why we call it parenthetical.
You are asserting that your one definition is the only one that should be used, but that's certainly not the case with language.
I'm beginning to think maybe your reading comprehension isn't so hot. Please see my sentence and the words "does not necessarily exist". Also please note I am asserting absolutely nothing about "one definition", I'm pointing out his words do not necessarily (there's that word again) say what the original judge claims they did.
It's clearly parenthetical and you're portraying ambiguity where there is none as a sophist mechanism. There's no rational way one can argue it's not parenthetical both because of obvious sentence structure and because there are no action words pertaining to the militia, no definition of a militia, etc...
Suppose I'm the principal of a school and I find out people are bringing in guns in their backpacks. I decide to disallow all non-clear backpacks and I send this out:
In order to prevent students from bringing guns and other weapons into school, the use of non-clear backpacks is prohibited.
Now, since I'm not smuggling weapons into school I suppose I can take your bizarro interpretation of English sentence structure and wear a black backpack, right?
Of course not. The opening phrase is parenthetical - I can omit it completely and the sentence still has the same meaning: The use of non-clea backpacks [by anyone] is prohibited.
"yet it happily promotes bogus treatments" does not necessarily imply dishonesty, it can also imply ineptitude or idiocy. So ruling that he was claiming they were intentionally promoting bogus treatments and knew and believed they were bogus infers something from the statement that does not necessarily exist.
People have the same problems interpreting the English language when it comes to the second amendment in the US Constitution. The "well regulated militia" clause is parenthetical but through willful idiocy or intentional sophistry some try to claim it's some kind of limiter or restriction.
There's nothing comedic about it, though. It's the world's most boring inside joke. It's like two people who've known each other for twenty years and have an inside joke about one time when they saw a guy trip over his shoe-laces. They then proceed, 10 years later, to find any reference to "better tie your shoe-laces" hilarious and tell anyone who doesn't laugh that they don't have a sense of humor.
I totally understand the attempted humor. Really I do. It's not exactly rocket surgery. I get it. It's just not funny because it's obvious.
And it would certainly be a leftist love-in rally. That's what makes these people think they're so clever, they're both political and they have these awesome, deep senses of humor.
I mean, doing a rally like Glen Beck, but it's actually (get this!)...MOCKING him and his followers and showing their various foibles! I mean, how original and hilarious would that be! Hey, I mean we could wear like bad fake teeth and confederate shirts, wouldn't that be totally hilarious because we're pointing out what rednecks they are!?
Ahh yes, the high culture of roflcat, i can haz cheeseburger, truthiness, and various derivations of movie quotes or song lyrics, etc... I guess any gaggle of Internet retards who can come up with some hilarious picture or saying and riff off of it for long enough is high in "culture".
Ashamedly, I must admit I find the occasional bit of Internet idiocy funny still, but it's getting less and less so as I get older and you just keep seeing the same shit over and over, the same hangers-on latching to something and trying to become pseudo Internet celebrities by propagating it or something like it. I'm only 36, god knows what I'll think of those dipshits when I'm 50.
If that's culture, my balls are monuments and my childhood feces drawings on the wall were art.
Well, saying Colbert/Stewart use "satire" is like saying some porn fantasy involving Harry Potter and Ron Weaseley you find on the Internet is "literature". If I draw a stick figure in Paint can I go around telling everyone I'm an Artist (pronounced Are-Teest of course)?
That's my issue with the teabaggers. Where were they when Dubya was spending us into the poorhouse? Granted, he was Scrooge McDuck compared to Obama.
I think they're largely religious nut Republicans fed up with how "RINO" (they love that term) filled their party has become. Sure, there is a subset of them who are more of a libertarian bent and have logical, rational points of view but I don't think they're a majority.
I hate both spectrums. The left sickens me with their dreary smugness and complete lack of grasp of obvious reality (we can't keep spending like this), while the right bores me with their flag-wrapped religious jingoism, World Police bullshit. I fucking hate them both.
You sound like one of those jackass right wing nuts, only the polar opposite.
Your argument reminds me of the ridiculous points right wingers make about e.g. gay marriage. "Oh my god, if we allow Gay Marriage the next thing you know people will be marrying elephants and having sex with Emus, is that what you want?! Because that's what's going to happen if we don't stop (queue dramatic music)duh-duh-DUH...the GAY AGENDA!"
You're both ridiculous. Nobody's going to be hunting homeless people or immigrants. Now creationism in school, we need to put a stop to that nonsense, unless it's taught in a philosophy or religious studies class.
Exactly. She waves her hand and says something like "Oh, they wouldn't know real debate so we shouldn't bother". The ironing cracks me up. One group of dim, smug assholes mocking another group of people for being dim, righteous assholes.
Begging the question. And yes, I used the phrase correctly. I love how when people see that phrase they automatically assume only they know how it's used, but I digress.
You're like one of those guys who goes on and on about how fake WWE wrestling is and how it's hilarious those hillbillies think it's real. Here's a clue: Nobody but young children and (literally) retarded people think it's real. They know it's entertainment.
Nobody thinks Beck or O'Reilly are "journalists" in the sense of just reporting on news. So your whole premise is flawed.
What exactly is funny about it? I'm no Glenn Beck fan, he's a delusional religious nut. But I don't get what's deep about what basically amounts to "Durr, let's do a mock rally". Seriously, the idea to lampoon somebody is original or clever?
He won't do it because anybody with half a brain sees how unoriginal, dreary, obvious, and boring the idea is. I don't watch his show, but going for the obvious tack doesn't seem his style.
Wow, you mean some smug Internet denizen came up with a way to launch a "hilarious" yet substance-free attack on a group she and all her cool friends just "know" is silly? What stunning news! Strawman used by baselessly smug group of left wingers against group of right wingers!
What next, are we going to have a story about a group of right wingers painting left wingers as Anti-American and playing the Outrage Card to rouse the rabble?
A pox on both their houses.
Doesn't it get boring after a while, reveling in how clever you and your Internet buddies who have developed some lame shared-language of goofball Internet memes are?
Lol. You have a book written by Him, huh? I can only assume you have his public key and have cryptographically verified the authenticity of it, aye? Where did you find the hash, btw?
Does god use a 1024 bit RSA key, or is he more of a DSA guy?
Slashdot Mirror
Reading these "OMG exploitation" posts makes me wonder what land of Unicorns and Ponies some of you live in, and how I can arrange travel to visit such a place.
Let's start with the premise that these poor workers are abused and exploited and work back to a solution to the problem. And I mean "problem" in a way similar to how gravity is a problem because when I throw a knife in the air it can land pointy side down in my eyeball.
First, let's just say he pays them "fair" wages. Say...75% of what a US employee would make. Suddenly he can't compete because his prices are higher than his competitors'. Also, at that point why wouldn't he just open a factory in the US? Much more reliable infrastructure, huge local market, etc... Once he does that these "poor workers" are worse off. Now instead of shitty job they have _no_ job and are farming dirt on a shit farm.
OK, so we can't trust this exploiter. So maybe we argue China should enforce fair labor laws. So China goes and does this, now it costs 5X as much to make stuff as it does in India, or Pakistan, or any other hellhole. Companies leave. Or maybe at that point, again, it's more profitable now to build in the US or Europe. Net effect is those poor oppressed Chinese laborers are making $0 an hour instead of $1.20 an hour. You sure helped them out!
Really, come back to reality. People in overpopulated, developing countries have shit lives and even shitty, underpaid jobs increase their standard of living greatly. The more you bleeding hard idiots try to "help" them the more fucked they will be.
Thank God you have absolutely no power. Your theory of limits to personal wealth don't work real well in a global marketplace.
You seem to be arguing from a perspective other than reality. We can't hold any of them accountable for anything, we're in no position to do any such thing. Sure, we're a big market for them but they are growing far faster than we are and they are a huge market for us as well.
Exactly, was going to post something similar. This should be a driver for us to get better at manufacturing efficiencies, not get into a trade war we can't even possibly come close to winning.
>I'm sick and tired of the rich
Yeah, I gathered that from your blatherings in the above thread.
You narrowly avoided being this guy., because at least you're not pretending not to know who pop culture stars are..
And by killer, I mean battery killer.
I think smartphones need to go back to basics. I'd take a smartphone that lasted 4 days of normal use on a single charge anytime over a new one that does shit I don't really need anyway 10% (or even 30%) faster.
Once they've got battery life back under control, get back on performance.
Lol. Stealing..embezzlement, huh? I can only assume you were on the investigative board, right? I mean you seem to know so much and use such dramatic language.
Citation needed.
All I saw was a report of something like an inaccurate expense report. This could be as simple as mislabeling expense reports which are valid but trying to hide or shift money from one name to another to prevent notice.
You know jack shit about what actually happened.
Prior to any of said trade secrets being used? Good luck with that one...
Ahh. You think I'm some conservative dummy, and you're arguing against one in your head.
I vacillate between hating left wing douches and right wing dipshits more on any given day. I am pro gun rights, which is about all I have in common with "conservatives". I'm also for fiscal conservativeness but more neo-cons aren't and just claim to be and ballooned the size of the government massively. I mock the conservative's cowardly fear of terrorism to the extent they'd sell out our core American values due to this fear. I despise religion. Patriotism beyond practical patriotism is something you use to keep dumb people in line, and I mock flag-wrapped, teary eyed conservative jingoism.
The truth is English is English. Words and sentences have meaning. You don't get to suddenly pretend maybe something that's parenthetical isn't because it happens to go counter to your agenda.
I do recognize your claim that the statement in question is unique. I dismiss that this is meaningful or needs special attention, unless one has an obvious agenda against gun rights - in which case I'm sure it does. The phrase "bear arms" only shows up once too, Oh Teh Noes! It must mean something, amirite?!
Your fake interpretation doesn't even make sense, why would the second amendment even exist based on this interpretation? The others give we, the people, rights the government must recognize. Oh, except the second one.. It actually gives, what, the fucking government the right to regulate and arm militias? Seriously? You want to play "one of these things doesn't belong", that's a serious one.
You know you won't get our gun rights legitimately by having the Constitution amended so you're applying some transparently sophistic argument and pretending maybe we can take the "living document" approach and reinterpret the English language.
I'm only 90% convinced you know what a parenthetical phrase is. 10% says you don't understand, but 90% says you do and are just playing dumb because of your agenda. Note also that commas do not define it.
Fundamentally the constitution defines the rights of the people and the limits to power of the government. You can, of course, remove the "militia" clause and the sentence, in that scope, means exactly the same thing.
Why do I need to name another meaningless parenthetical statement in the Constitution? What rules exactly are you applying here? You seem to be applying a "it fits my agenda, so I'm going to assume that since there's one instance of a parenthetical phrase in the bill of rights I will pretend it's not parenthetical" rule of some sort.
It doesn't matter if there are 50 instances or 1 instance - English is English. That parenthetical phrase does not accomplish anything, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" does. See, that's why we call it parenthetical.
You are asserting that your one definition is the only one that should be used, but that's certainly not the case with language.
I'm beginning to think maybe your reading comprehension isn't so hot. Please see my sentence and the words "does not necessarily exist". Also please note I am asserting absolutely nothing about "one definition", I'm pointing out his words do not necessarily (there's that word again) say what the original judge claims they did.
English fail.
It's clearly parenthetical and you're portraying ambiguity where there is none as a sophist mechanism. There's no rational way one can argue it's not parenthetical both because of obvious sentence structure and because there are no action words pertaining to the militia, no definition of a militia, etc...
Suppose I'm the principal of a school and I find out people are bringing in guns in their backpacks. I decide to disallow all non-clear backpacks and I send this out:
In order to prevent students from bringing guns and other weapons into school, the use of non-clear backpacks is prohibited.
Now, since I'm not smuggling weapons into school I suppose I can take your bizarro interpretation of English sentence structure and wear a black backpack, right?
Of course not. The opening phrase is parenthetical - I can omit it completely and the sentence still has the same meaning: The use of non-clea backpacks [by anyone] is prohibited.
"yet it happily promotes bogus treatments" does not necessarily imply dishonesty, it can also imply ineptitude or idiocy. So ruling that he was claiming they were intentionally promoting bogus treatments and knew and believed they were bogus infers something from the statement that does not necessarily exist.
People have the same problems interpreting the English language when it comes to the second amendment in the US Constitution. The "well regulated militia" clause is parenthetical but through willful idiocy or intentional sophistry some try to claim it's some kind of limiter or restriction.
There's nothing comedic about it, though. It's the world's most boring inside joke. It's like two people who've known each other for twenty years and have an inside joke about one time when they saw a guy trip over his shoe-laces. They then proceed, 10 years later, to find any reference to "better tie your shoe-laces" hilarious and tell anyone who doesn't laugh that they don't have a sense of humor.
I totally understand the attempted humor. Really I do. It's not exactly rocket surgery. I get it. It's just not funny because it's obvious.
And it would certainly be a leftist love-in rally. That's what makes these people think they're so clever, they're both political and they have these awesome, deep senses of humor.
I mean, doing a rally like Glen Beck, but it's actually (get this!)...MOCKING him and his followers and showing their various foibles! I mean, how original and hilarious would that be! Hey, I mean we could wear like bad fake teeth and confederate shirts, wouldn't that be totally hilarious because we're pointing out what rednecks they are!?
Really... and this is clever?
Ahh yes, the high culture of roflcat, i can haz cheeseburger, truthiness, and various derivations of movie quotes or song lyrics, etc... I guess any gaggle of Internet retards who can come up with some hilarious picture or saying and riff off of it for long enough is high in "culture".
Ashamedly, I must admit I find the occasional bit of Internet idiocy funny still, but it's getting less and less so as I get older and you just keep seeing the same shit over and over, the same hangers-on latching to something and trying to become pseudo Internet celebrities by propagating it or something like it. I'm only 36, god knows what I'll think of those dipshits when I'm 50.
If that's culture, my balls are monuments and my childhood feces drawings on the wall were art.
Actually they are, you smug jackass.
Category: Things which you may not like and are free to use as reasons not to do business with a given company.
Well, saying Colbert/Stewart use "satire" is like saying some porn fantasy involving Harry Potter and Ron Weaseley you find on the Internet is "literature". If I draw a stick figure in Paint can I go around telling everyone I'm an Artist (pronounced Are-Teest of course)?
Sure... but does it avail anyone to call it such?
That's my issue with the teabaggers. Where were they when Dubya was spending us into the poorhouse? Granted, he was Scrooge McDuck compared to Obama.
I think they're largely religious nut Republicans fed up with how "RINO" (they love that term) filled their party has become. Sure, there is a subset of them who are more of a libertarian bent and have logical, rational points of view but I don't think they're a majority.
I hate both spectrums. The left sickens me with their dreary smugness and complete lack of grasp of obvious reality (we can't keep spending like this), while the right bores me with their flag-wrapped religious jingoism, World Police bullshit. I fucking hate them both.
You sound like one of those jackass right wing nuts, only the polar opposite.
Your argument reminds me of the ridiculous points right wingers make about e.g. gay marriage. "Oh my god, if we allow Gay Marriage the next thing you know people will be marrying elephants and having sex with Emus, is that what you want?! Because that's what's going to happen if we don't stop (queue dramatic music)duh-duh-DUH...the GAY AGENDA!"
You're both ridiculous. Nobody's going to be hunting homeless people or immigrants. Now creationism in school, we need to put a stop to that nonsense, unless it's taught in a philosophy or religious studies class.
Exactly. She waves her hand and says something like "Oh, they wouldn't know real debate so we shouldn't bother". The ironing cracks me up. One group of dim, smug assholes mocking another group of people for being dim, righteous assholes.
Begging the question. And yes, I used the phrase correctly. I love how when people see that phrase they automatically assume only they know how it's used, but I digress.
You're like one of those guys who goes on and on about how fake WWE wrestling is and how it's hilarious those hillbillies think it's real. Here's a clue: Nobody but young children and (literally) retarded people think it's real. They know it's entertainment.
Nobody thinks Beck or O'Reilly are "journalists" in the sense of just reporting on news. So your whole premise is flawed.
Satire.. that word. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
What exactly is funny about it? I'm no Glenn Beck fan, he's a delusional religious nut. But I don't get what's deep about what basically amounts to "Durr, let's do a mock rally". Seriously, the idea to lampoon somebody is original or clever?
He won't do it because anybody with half a brain sees how unoriginal, dreary, obvious, and boring the idea is. I don't watch his show, but going for the obvious tack doesn't seem his style.
Wow, you mean some smug Internet denizen came up with a way to launch a "hilarious" yet substance-free attack on a group she and all her cool friends just "know" is silly? What stunning news! Strawman used by baselessly smug group of left wingers against group of right wingers!
What next, are we going to have a story about a group of right wingers painting left wingers as Anti-American and playing the Outrage Card to rouse the rabble?
A pox on both their houses.
Doesn't it get boring after a while, reveling in how clever you and your Internet buddies who have developed some lame shared-language of goofball Internet memes are?
Oh, wait...
Lol. You have a book written by Him, huh? I can only assume you have his public key and have cryptographically verified the authenticity of it, aye? Where did you find the hash, btw?
Does god use a 1024 bit RSA key, or is he more of a DSA guy?