Now if you'd like to bitch that a lot of today's CEOs keep their jobs and make mad cash while their company flounders, that's another matter entirely.
It'll take a lot more than just the CEO though. Corporations overall are a pretty fucked up idea. The whole board of directors/CEO system is nearly as corruptible as politics.
These capitalists you scoff at? They're the ones who get all the little things that make life more bearable into existence and on the shelves at the stores. Yes, they absolutely contribute more for their money than most Nobel laruiets. Put simply, they give you what you want.
I won't say Gates deserves every billion he has; he was involved in several shady deals. I will say that every dollar he earned honestly, he deserves though. Yes, he is exactly that brilliant. You can tell by how people kept on and kept on giving him money for what he was selling.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that work should be rewarded by value to society. Let me let you in on a little secret, society doesn't exist, only people. People found billions of dollars of value in what Bill had to sell and now Bill has billions of dollars.
This system you seem so down on? It's money, plain and simple. Money is portable, solidified work; nothing more, nothing less. Not all work is created equal. Nobody cares if you dig a hole in your back yard and they will give you none of their work in exchange. People DID care that they didn't have to use DOS anymore and gave Bill their work in exchange. You find a high-value bit of work, distribute the product of that work as widely as you can, and you can have billions too. But are you capable? Most aren't. THAT is why there is such a disparity of income.
You have a hard time seeing that as wrong because they're an easy target. Why do you rob banks? Because that's where they keep the money. If you actually gave two shits about fairness, you'd be advocating a flat tax rate.
Slaves are not paid. If you are paid and free to leave for a better job, you are not a slave. Possibly an idiot but not in any way a slave.
An education and a couple bucks will get you a cup of coffee. It does absolutely nothing to improve anyone's standard of living on its own. To the vast majority of jobs in the US, a degree of any kind is almost entirely useless. It's most certainly not worth paying ten or a hundred times what a worker overseas without one will do the work for.
Who paid for their education? Disproportionately the people you're looking to demonize. The government has no money but what it takes from its citizens first, so no, the government was not really who footed the bill, were they?
Asking someone to pay more because "others" paid for earlier work to make their accumulation of wealth possible is most certainly denying the right for them to keep the wealth they've earned. Those "others" were primarily either other innovators who already made their profits for said work or taxes that they themselves paid a disproportionate percentage of.
He'd be wrong for quite a lot of union jobs. A pretty fair chunk industrial jobs, for instance, boil down to "babysit some machinery for a third of the day" or are otherwise physically bottlenecked by recurring circumstances.
Now there are plenty of jobs out there where you can do exactly that. Almost none of them are union though because in every case results are what matter; no results, no pay.
Then take the kind of job where you can. The world isn't lacking them. If you need a suggestion for one that pays very well, try the exciting world of plumbing. Or any kind of contractor at all.
The flip side of that is, much of what you take for granted today as necessities of life only exist because some capitalist bastard figured out how to make something faster and cheaper so he could make more money. Should the poor have to give a portion of their income to the rich because now even poor people have a car, a TV, climate control in their home, clean water, refrigerated food, and cold beer? The innovations of industry have raised the standard of living of every citizen far more than anything the government has ever done. Don't believe me? Visit Somalia or somewhere else they simply don't exist. They know what poor is, you don't have a fucking clue.
You seem to be under the impression that executive positions are pay for x amount of work like wage positions. They're not. If a CEO hires VPs that can run their divisions well enough that he can sit at home playing video games all day, he's done his job and done it well. Only results matter, hours put in mean nothing.
Now if you'd like to bitch that a lot of today's CEOs keep their jobs and make mad cash while their company flounders, that's another matter entirely.
I would have too. Anyone who thinks it's a good idea to charge ten times the cash and do a quarter of the work deserves to starve. Unions can protect you from a lot of bad things but your own greed, laziness, and stupidity are not among them.
Because The People are reality-TV-watching morons. Indirect elections mitigate both tyrrany of the masses and kneejerk reactions that turn out to be bloody stupid five minutes later.
Wrong question and depends on your usage pattern. A 1TB HDD is almost certainly going to have hardware improvements and perform better than your 100GB, fragmented or not.
The drive in TFA is a SSD, not a HDD, though and never requires defragmentation because it isn't slowed down by fragmentation.
English FAIL. Even slow gradeschool kids could recognize the topic sentence in my original post as containing my point. Maybe you should have a seven year old explain it to you.
My point was that "Organic" is not a universally positive term and makes for a poor analogy. I then gave an example to support that claim. I further gave three reasons in support of the example. Only one reason was even arguably prejudiced.
The first reason, overpriced, is fairly well indisputible if you're comparing apples to organic apples. The word "Organic" adds a price premium as reliably as the Apple logo does.
Bug-ridden is likewise a factual statement. Organic foods are significantly more likely to be infested by both the insect and infectious varities of bugs. The types of fertilizer used and the aversion to pesticides make this a certainty.
The last may indeed be somewhat prejudiced but it is not remotely untrue. How the reader feels about that is their issue, it's not mine.
Two completely valid reasons that "Organic" should not be assumed to be a positive adjective and one that may or may not be valid depending on your own prejudices.
My original post was not meant as flamebait but if you're going to treat it as such, please try not to suck so hard at it next time. Now that was flamebait.
Eh, that analogy only works if "Organic" strikes you as a good thing. To me it says overpriced, bug-ridden, hippie/hipster-fodder. Putting "Organic" on it ensures that I will not purchase it if there is another option.
We have the space to park large cars and the money to afford the fuel. Where's the benefit in buying a car that can't hold both your family and groceries, offers all the accident survivability of a motorcycle, and makes you look like you should be wearing oversized shoes and a rubber nose when you don't have to?
Seriously, it's like bitching about wasting resources by living in large houses just because you lot have to settle for a flat the size of our bedroom. We have the space and the resources to have a better standard of living than you. Get the fuck over it.
Slashdot Mirror
True but there's a nearly infinite supply of it coming from Washington alone.
Making the right decisions is real work. Exceptionally hard work to do well even. You can tell by how you're not doing it and raking in millions.
Read the whole post and you would have seen:
It'll take a lot more than just the CEO though. Corporations overall are a pretty fucked up idea. The whole board of directors/CEO system is nearly as corruptible as politics.
Hence this bit:
Yeah, I thought that was pretty sweet. His boss was probably just pissed he didn't think of it first.
Why the fuck should they? You're the one unhappy with your job. Go get trained your own damned self and don't cry that someone else won't pay for it.
These capitalists you scoff at? They're the ones who get all the little things that make life more bearable into existence and on the shelves at the stores. Yes, they absolutely contribute more for their money than most Nobel laruiets. Put simply, they give you what you want.
I won't say Gates deserves every billion he has; he was involved in several shady deals. I will say that every dollar he earned honestly, he deserves though. Yes, he is exactly that brilliant. You can tell by how people kept on and kept on giving him money for what he was selling.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that work should be rewarded by value to society. Let me let you in on a little secret, society doesn't exist, only people. People found billions of dollars of value in what Bill had to sell and now Bill has billions of dollars.
This system you seem so down on? It's money, plain and simple. Money is portable, solidified work; nothing more, nothing less. Not all work is created equal. Nobody cares if you dig a hole in your back yard and they will give you none of their work in exchange. People DID care that they didn't have to use DOS anymore and gave Bill their work in exchange. You find a high-value bit of work, distribute the product of that work as widely as you can, and you can have billions too. But are you capable? Most aren't. THAT is why there is such a disparity of income.
You have a hard time seeing that as wrong because they're an easy target. Why do you rob banks? Because that's where they keep the money. If you actually gave two shits about fairness, you'd be advocating a flat tax rate.
Slaves are not paid. If you are paid and free to leave for a better job, you are not a slave. Possibly an idiot but not in any way a slave.
An education and a couple bucks will get you a cup of coffee. It does absolutely nothing to improve anyone's standard of living on its own. To the vast majority of jobs in the US, a degree of any kind is almost entirely useless. It's most certainly not worth paying ten or a hundred times what a worker overseas without one will do the work for.
Who paid for their education? Disproportionately the people you're looking to demonize. The government has no money but what it takes from its citizens first, so no, the government was not really who footed the bill, were they?
Which is all fine and capitalistic. What isn't is asking them to pay a portion of their income for the privilege of being able to buy them at all.
Horse. Shit.
Asking someone to pay more because "others" paid for earlier work to make their accumulation of wealth possible is most certainly denying the right for them to keep the wealth they've earned. Those "others" were primarily either other innovators who already made their profits for said work or taxes that they themselves paid a disproportionate percentage of.
He'd be wrong for quite a lot of union jobs. A pretty fair chunk industrial jobs, for instance, boil down to "babysit some machinery for a third of the day" or are otherwise physically bottlenecked by recurring circumstances.
Now there are plenty of jobs out there where you can do exactly that. Almost none of them are union though because in every case results are what matter; no results, no pay.
Then take the kind of job where you can. The world isn't lacking them. If you need a suggestion for one that pays very well, try the exciting world of plumbing. Or any kind of contractor at all.
The flip side of that is, much of what you take for granted today as necessities of life only exist because some capitalist bastard figured out how to make something faster and cheaper so he could make more money. Should the poor have to give a portion of their income to the rich because now even poor people have a car, a TV, climate control in their home, clean water, refrigerated food, and cold beer? The innovations of industry have raised the standard of living of every citizen far more than anything the government has ever done. Don't believe me? Visit Somalia or somewhere else they simply don't exist. They know what poor is, you don't have a fucking clue.
You seem to be under the impression that executive positions are pay for x amount of work like wage positions. They're not. If a CEO hires VPs that can run their divisions well enough that he can sit at home playing video games all day, he's done his job and done it well. Only results matter, hours put in mean nothing.
Now if you'd like to bitch that a lot of today's CEOs keep their jobs and make mad cash while their company flounders, that's another matter entirely.
I would have too. Anyone who thinks it's a good idea to charge ten times the cash and do a quarter of the work deserves to starve. Unions can protect you from a lot of bad things but your own greed, laziness, and stupidity are not among them.
Because The People are reality-TV-watching morons. Indirect elections mitigate both tyrrany of the masses and kneejerk reactions that turn out to be bloody stupid five minutes later.
Wrong question and depends on your usage pattern. A 1TB HDD is almost certainly going to have hardware improvements and perform better than your 100GB, fragmented or not.
The drive in TFA is a SSD, not a HDD, though and never requires defragmentation because it isn't slowed down by fragmentation.
English FAIL. Even slow gradeschool kids could recognize the topic sentence in my original post as containing my point. Maybe you should have a seven year old explain it to you.
My point was that "Organic" is not a universally positive term and makes for a poor analogy. I then gave an example to support that claim. I further gave three reasons in support of the example. Only one reason was even arguably prejudiced.
The first reason, overpriced, is fairly well indisputible if you're comparing apples to organic apples. The word "Organic" adds a price premium as reliably as the Apple logo does.
Bug-ridden is likewise a factual statement. Organic foods are significantly more likely to be infested by both the insect and infectious varities of bugs. The types of fertilizer used and the aversion to pesticides make this a certainty.
The last may indeed be somewhat prejudiced but it is not remotely untrue. How the reader feels about that is their issue, it's not mine.
Two completely valid reasons that "Organic" should not be assumed to be a positive adjective and one that may or may not be valid depending on your own prejudices.
My original post was not meant as flamebait but if you're going to treat it as such, please try not to suck so hard at it next time. Now that was flamebait.
Eh, that analogy only works if "Organic" strikes you as a good thing. To me it says overpriced, bug-ridden, hippie/hipster-fodder. Putting "Organic" on it ensures that I will not purchase it if there is another option.
Yeah, that's some truly shit editing. Never a mod point when I need one.
Good point. I think I'll pass on testing the full extent of that theory's correctness though.
Dunno but they're pretty closely related to doves and those are pretty tasty if you wrap the breasts in bacon and fry them in butter.
We have the space to park large cars and the money to afford the fuel. Where's the benefit in buying a car that can't hold both your family and groceries, offers all the accident survivability of a motorcycle, and makes you look like you should be wearing oversized shoes and a rubber nose when you don't have to?
Seriously, it's like bitching about wasting resources by living in large houses just because you lot have to settle for a flat the size of our bedroom. We have the space and the resources to have a better standard of living than you. Get the fuck over it.