That seems rather shortsighted. If companies can only compete due to the exploitation of a disenfranchised population, they'll move most of their jobs to that location and argue for the same conditions in the places they moved from. Consequently, you won't be able to make a livable wage because some poor sod somewhere else can do it for fractions of a penny on the dollar. The solution is not to ship back jobs or block of trade but to impose some kind of tariff on companies that violate some standardized notion of decent working conditions: a livable wage, time for rest, vacation time, health insurance, etc (give or take a few benefits). If we can't establish ethical treatment of others, we can hardly expect any for ourselves.
You're making the invalid assumption that millionaires create jobs. We've already seen how well that works out with the Bush cuts: a widening disparity between the super-rich and other classes. Millionaires and above really participate in creative job destruction. For example, they can efficiently assign an analysis to do the work of 10 data crunchers. One could view this as creating 1 job or destroying 9. A smaller business might not achieve the same efficiencies and higher more people. I'm not saying there is a moral right or wrong to either situation. Just that translating tax dollars to jobs misses some of the more interesting and complex nuances in how jobs are actually created and by who.
There are two problems with that. One is if there are a lot of people, the noise from conversations can easily block out the noise of an electric vehicle. Also, if there is a gas car behind an electric vehicle, that gives a false sense of where the danger is. I might hear a vehicle 10-15 feet behind me, but it will be too late if the electric vehicle is 2 feet away and not stopping.
Earlier this month, a ProPublica/PBS NewsHour investigation found that the TSA had glossed over research that the X-ray scanners could lead to a small number of cancer cases.
Because cancer is clearly not a big deal. From another perspective, I wonder what dosage TSA agents get when they stand around those devices all day. I'm not particularly fond of them, but I wouldn't wish cancer on anyone. And these scanners are probably increasing their chances significantly. I wonder if anyone is up for conducting a large-scale clinical trial to show the low-level employees that these devices are hazardous and that they too should be against them.
Stata is another option and it isn't too expensive. I find it more usable than R with regards to the basic tests. And it somewhat supports copy-paste functionality between excel.
I dunno. I always considered a Hollywood movie adaptation the death knell for a tv series. Consider the following list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_television_programs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_television_programs. Most of those movies were made at or after the end of the series. I don't think it's because the tv series became stale, but rather that movie-fying something changes the criteria by which it is enjoyed. I find it difficult to articulate how it changes, Probably because the movie ends up being a capstone and anything after is relegated to the epilogue.
99 cents is really not that cheap. Consider a typical CD with 12 +/- 4 songs. You'd be paying about 12$ to store a couple of bits in the cloud. This is roughly the same price one could find at Walmart or Target, albeit with less of a selection. Apple has the record companies by the balls, not because they offer a cheaper service, but because now they're getting a significant cut of the profits while co-opting their job as content distributor. If artists can publish over itunes, they suddenly make the existing set of middlemen look redundant.
Actually the Chicago Manual of style allows this as an alternative spelling when using the possessive on a noun ending with an s. It's uncommon but not invalid.
Would you knowingly and intentionally bring a child into this world that you are unable to care for?
No...What I was saying was that the ability to take care of a child may not be constant. For most people who are not super wealthy it's impossible to guarantee that they'll be gainfully employed 100% of the time for when the child needs it, or that some emergency won't completely eliminate their funds. Given the recent streak of layoffs, that's not an unreasonable assumption to make.
Would you then expect others to provide for that child?
Not completely, but for some basic necessities, yes. Even if the child is not mine, I may still benefit from that child's education or well being. Hence, I don't mind if my taxes go to a public school system to ensure their education or some rebate to ensure they're are clothed. I personally think society benefits as a whole if we have an up and coming generation that is educated and industrious. The alternative might be that they drift into gangs or unsavory/unproductive employment because they're expected to make do with absolutely no resources.
I think you are missing the fact that by putting off having children, a person is able to better focus on raising themselves out of poverty and achieving the income level that would enable them to support a child.
That works if there is an actual employment ladder to climb. Some professions like teaching, cooking, cleaning, etc are useful to society but provide little opportunity to escape poverty. Especially if individuals in those jobs need to work double time just to say afloat, instead of obtaining an education.
But what I find disturbing is that you seem to believe that people should avail themselves of the "right" to have children and then expect society to pick up the cost. What kind of thinking is that?
What I mean by fundamental right, is that people have the capacity to perform such an activity regardless of economical or governmental pressures for or against. It simply happens. It is not granted or revoked albeit it may be encouraged or discouraged. I am not expecting anybody to pick up the cost. I'm simply suggesting that more benefits are to be had from sharing the burden rather than the opposite.
It's certainly a bit of a left-ish stance and I suspect that by the standard arguments you role out that you have a very conservative point of view. Consequently my arguments are probably falling on deaf and somewhat agitated ears, so I'll just leave my point of view where it stands.
Agreed to some extent. Though I think we've become a society obsessed with having the right piece of paper. Nowadays a B.S. is the new GED.
2. DON'T have kids if you can't afford them. The cause of pregnancy is well known.
I actually have a problem with this statement on many levels. The first is that poverty sometimes isn't predictable. A family could be getting by with a 50-100k income until one of the members loses a job. At this point you can't un-birth a child and separating the family purely based on income is a horrible idea, at least for those who have children.
The other aspect of your comment that is troublesome is your belief that only a couple of sufficient means can have children. Or to put it another way the economically challenged aren't allowed children. In this case, their only purpose is to act as a labor class. You are essentially taking away peoples' fundamental rights just because they are poor. If their is a structural inequality such as the employment and tax problem we are experiencing now, you essentially crate a slave labor class, though in a more socially acceptable context. Sure there are no whips and chains but bankruptcy and a judicial system can be equally binding.
3. DON'T blame your problems on others.
Most of us are not grumbling due to failures we've made but rather to the unprecedented transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich over the last couple of years. The rich get tax breaks and the banks get bailed out on tax payer money. Meanwhile the middle and lower class citizens are required to give up their social nets such as medicare/medicaid and social security to pay for these bailouts while corporations are firing mass quantities of workers to survive the current economic times.
As things currently stand, it's our social responsibility to bitch and whine about the current distribution of wealth, lest things get worse.
The already have. 3d printers can print their own parts, but it requires some manual assembly to make the 2nd printer. I'm sure it's not a very big leap to extend the printer to have an assembly component as well.
It depends. If robots take up some of the menial labor, humans are afforded more time to work on other problems. The calculator might have replaced pure number crunchers, but that doesn't mean people don't practice math anymore. There are still physicist, mathematicians, and engineers. Odds are, if I robot assistant is developed, we'll have robot repair shops, programming centers, and robot insurance; while having fewer fruit pickers and maids. Humans will probably be replaced for certain tasks, but since we define society as a group of humans, we will probably never be rid of one another.
It is amazing that we do actually live in a world where people willing become slaves. This experiment gave us great insights into social psychology.
This point is interesting in that a few very early philosophers have discussed this phenomena where some seek to be leaders while others seek to be led. I believe Archimedes argued that there is a natural paradigm for slave/master and Nietze that some men are just born better. It's unpleasant to consider, but we do live with these dichotomies to one degree or another.
Meh, that's just a distraction from the more interesting issues that are about. Such as why Goldman can get a billion dollar bailout after helping to sink the economy, or why we can't have decent healthcare in this country. For every sensationalistic news piece you see on tv, assume the real news is elsewhere.
I believe that's partially correct. While selecting the correct source can lead to a wealth of information, it can also result in a biased selection. For instance, if the Fox news website happens to get some of their information correct, or at least the circumstantial facts, they might be labeled as a good source. However, if the dialogue around those facts are tightly controlled they can provide information in a way that is not entirely honest. A good example is the early drafts of the healthcare bill had a clause discussing end-of-life procedures which ended up being conflated into death panels. That clause was subsequently removed or neutered. In this manner, it's important to have a news site present objective facts and analysis to everyone, which you may not get if you self-select your source.
Given that, I still think traditional media has failed in this task and I'm not sorry to see them paying the price of having to compete with alternative sources.
Grep works when you know what you're looking for. Doing any sort of semantic knowledge discovery might require more effort in annotating and organizing the data.
Slashdot Mirror
Would your algorithm happen to run on GladOS?
That seems rather shortsighted. If companies can only compete due to the exploitation of a disenfranchised population, they'll move most of their jobs to that location and argue for the same conditions in the places they moved from. Consequently, you won't be able to make a livable wage because some poor sod somewhere else can do it for fractions of a penny on the dollar. The solution is not to ship back jobs or block of trade but to impose some kind of tariff on companies that violate some standardized notion of decent working conditions: a livable wage, time for rest, vacation time, health insurance, etc (give or take a few benefits). If we can't establish ethical treatment of others, we can hardly expect any for ourselves.
You're making the invalid assumption that millionaires create jobs. We've already seen how well that works out with the Bush cuts: a widening disparity between the super-rich and other classes. Millionaires and above really participate in creative job destruction. For example, they can efficiently assign an analysis to do the work of 10 data crunchers. One could view this as creating 1 job or destroying 9. A smaller business might not achieve the same efficiencies and higher more people. I'm not saying there is a moral right or wrong to either situation. Just that translating tax dollars to jobs misses some of the more interesting and complex nuances in how jobs are actually created and by who.
Damnit, I knew I shouldn't have switched the labels on you lunch box.
Or if there's a fire out grounds level, how do you get everyone out?
There are two problems with that. One is if there are a lot of people, the noise from conversations can easily block out the noise of an electric vehicle. Also, if there is a gas car behind an electric vehicle, that gives a false sense of where the danger is. I might hear a vehicle 10-15 feet behind me, but it will be too late if the electric vehicle is 2 feet away and not stopping.
Ipads for everyone!
Earlier this month, a ProPublica/PBS NewsHour investigation found that the TSA had glossed over research that the X-ray scanners could lead to a small number of cancer cases.
Because cancer is clearly not a big deal. From another perspective, I wonder what dosage TSA agents get when they stand around those devices all day. I'm not particularly fond of them, but I wouldn't wish cancer on anyone. And these scanners are probably increasing their chances significantly. I wonder if anyone is up for conducting a large-scale clinical trial to show the low-level employees that these devices are hazardous and that they too should be against them.
Stata is another option and it isn't too expensive. I find it more usable than R with regards to the basic tests. And it somewhat supports copy-paste functionality between excel.
I dunno. I always considered a Hollywood movie adaptation the death knell for a tv series. Consider the following list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_television_programs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_television_programs. Most of those movies were made at or after the end of the series. I don't think it's because the tv series became stale, but rather that movie-fying something changes the criteria by which it is enjoyed. I find it difficult to articulate how it changes, Probably because the movie ends up being a capstone and anything after is relegated to the epilogue.
99 cents is really not that cheap. Consider a typical CD with 12 +/- 4 songs. You'd be paying about 12$ to store a couple of bits in the cloud. This is roughly the same price one could find at Walmart or Target, albeit with less of a selection. Apple has the record companies by the balls, not because they offer a cheaper service, but because now they're getting a significant cut of the profits while co-opting their job as content distributor. If artists can publish over itunes, they suddenly make the existing set of middlemen look redundant.
My personal favorites are
Barry Ritholz
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/
David Merkel
http://alephblog.com/
Though one might argue that they are more so stock traders than pure economists.
Just a quick question out of ignorance, how does the stardate communicate relative time frames?
Actually the Chicago Manual of style allows this as an alternative spelling when using the possessive on a noun ending with an s. It's uncommon but not invalid.
He also wants to get rid of the biggest ponzi scheme of all! Social Security.
Would you like to vote for the douche or the turd sandwich? : /
Clearly submerged mortages sunk the housing market and all assets were lost when liquidity flooded the market.
Would you knowingly and intentionally bring a child into this world that you are unable to care for?
No...What I was saying was that the ability to take care of a child may not be constant. For most people who are not super wealthy it's impossible to guarantee that they'll be gainfully employed 100% of the time for when the child needs it, or that some emergency won't completely eliminate their funds. Given the recent streak of layoffs, that's not an unreasonable assumption to make.
Would you then expect others to provide for that child?
Not completely, but for some basic necessities, yes. Even if the child is not mine, I may still benefit from that child's education or well being. Hence, I don't mind if my taxes go to a public school system to ensure their education or some rebate to ensure they're are clothed. I personally think society benefits as a whole if we have an up and coming generation that is educated and industrious. The alternative might be that they drift into gangs or unsavory/unproductive employment because they're expected to make do with absolutely no resources.
I think you are missing the fact that by putting off having children, a person is able to better focus on raising themselves out of poverty and achieving the income level that would enable them to support a child.
That works if there is an actual employment ladder to climb. Some professions like teaching, cooking, cleaning, etc are useful to society but provide little opportunity to escape poverty. Especially if individuals in those jobs need to work double time just to say afloat, instead of obtaining an education.
But what I find disturbing is that you seem to believe that people should avail themselves of the "right" to have children and then expect society to pick up the cost. What kind of thinking is that?
What I mean by fundamental right, is that people have the capacity to perform such an activity regardless of economical or governmental pressures for or against. It simply happens. It is not granted or revoked albeit it may be encouraged or discouraged. I am not expecting anybody to pick up the cost. I'm simply suggesting that more benefits are to be had from sharing the burden rather than the opposite.
It's certainly a bit of a left-ish stance and I suspect that by the standard arguments you role out that you have a very conservative point of view. Consequently my arguments are probably falling on deaf and somewhat agitated ears, so I'll just leave my point of view where it stands.
1. Stay in school and at least get a H.S. degree.
Agreed to some extent. Though I think we've become a society obsessed with having the right piece of paper. Nowadays a B.S. is the new GED.
2. DON'T have kids if you can't afford them. The cause of pregnancy is well known.
I actually have a problem with this statement on many levels. The first is that poverty sometimes isn't predictable. A family could be getting by with a 50-100k income until one of the members loses a job. At this point you can't un-birth a child and separating the family purely based on income is a horrible idea, at least for those who have children.
The other aspect of your comment that is troublesome is your belief that only a couple of sufficient means can have children. Or to put it another way the economically challenged aren't allowed children. In this case, their only purpose is to act as a labor class. You are essentially taking away peoples' fundamental rights just because they are poor. If their is a structural inequality such as the employment and tax problem we are experiencing now, you essentially crate a slave labor class, though in a more socially acceptable context. Sure there are no whips and chains but bankruptcy and a judicial system can be equally binding.
3. DON'T blame your problems on others.
Most of us are not grumbling due to failures we've made but rather to the unprecedented transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich over the last couple of years. The rich get tax breaks and the banks get bailed out on tax payer money. Meanwhile the middle and lower class citizens are required to give up their social nets such as medicare/medicaid and social security to pay for these bailouts while corporations are firing mass quantities of workers to survive the current economic times.
As things currently stand, it's our social responsibility to bitch and whine about the current distribution of wealth, lest things get worse.
The already have. 3d printers can print their own parts, but it requires some manual assembly to make the 2nd printer. I'm sure it's not a very big leap to extend the printer to have an assembly component as well.
It depends. If robots take up some of the menial labor, humans are afforded more time to work on other problems. The calculator might have replaced pure number crunchers, but that doesn't mean people don't practice math anymore. There are still physicist, mathematicians, and engineers. Odds are, if I robot assistant is developed, we'll have robot repair shops, programming centers, and robot insurance; while having fewer fruit pickers and maids. Humans will probably be replaced for certain tasks, but since we define society as a group of humans, we will probably never be rid of one another.
It is amazing that we do actually live in a world where people willing become slaves. This experiment gave us great insights into social psychology.
This point is interesting in that a few very early philosophers have discussed this phenomena where some seek to be leaders while others seek to be led. I believe Archimedes argued that there is a natural paradigm for slave/master and Nietze that some men are just born better. It's unpleasant to consider, but we do live with these dichotomies to one degree or another.
Meh, that's just a distraction from the more interesting issues that are about. Such as why Goldman can get a billion dollar bailout after helping to sink the economy, or why we can't have decent healthcare in this country. For every sensationalistic news piece you see on tv, assume the real news is elsewhere.
I believe that's partially correct. While selecting the correct source can lead to a wealth of information, it can also result in a biased selection. For instance, if the Fox news website happens to get some of their information correct, or at least the circumstantial facts, they might be labeled as a good source. However, if the dialogue around those facts are tightly controlled they can provide information in a way that is not entirely honest. A good example is the early drafts of the healthcare bill had a clause discussing end-of-life procedures which ended up being conflated into death panels. That clause was subsequently removed or neutered. In this manner, it's important to have a news site present objective facts and analysis to everyone, which you may not get if you self-select your source.
Given that, I still think traditional media has failed in this task and I'm not sorry to see them paying the price of having to compete with alternative sources.
Grep works when you know what you're looking for. Doing any sort of semantic knowledge discovery might require more effort in annotating and organizing the data.