The Bloomberg article linked in the summary, by a private company.
The free market dictates that consumers shouldn't hear about this
That's absurd, we are discussing it. We have heard about it and not from the government. That's not to say I'm against any and all regulation, but you can now that you know you can choose seafood from places with better standards. If you buy domestic rather than imported products you will know that your own countries standards apply.
Even when it's about something as obvious as the fact that cramming animals into tiny balls and then making them fight in gladiatorial style combat may be ethically questionable.
So is dropping pianos on people but in cartoons we tolerate it.
According to the Australian Federal Police it is not illegal, as I pointed out to you in my other post. It is probably not even illegal in the US if previous supreme court judgements about the press publishing leaked secrets were followed. Of course, Assange doesn't have the legal team the New York Times does so that probably wouldn't help.
you can see interacting with your peers, some of which will like or dislike you for no good reason as creepy if you like.
I don't see interacting with your peers as creepy, it's the idea that we need government intervention to learn how to do that.
Bullies are alive and well in corporate America, you need to learn how to deal with them at some point.
I would argue that our school system produces bullies, people who tolerate bullying on others and victims, and is indeed preparing all of them for corporate life. That's mainly what I don't like about it. Look at all the people here who complain about corporations yet work in them. Condemned by conditioning and debt to spend their days toiling for people they despise. Only few escape.
Also note, I didn't say social skills were the only value of the school system.
And note that I didn't disagree with anything else you brought up. It's just that with some kids being bullied to the point of suicide, I think social skills is something the education system needs to prove itself on, not boast about. This Australian state school apparently has reduced bullying significantly by teaching philosophy and logic. http://burandass.eq.edu.au/wcms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68&Itemid=125 If that program had been in place in a school near us, we would have given more consideration to using a state school. I'm not sure that any political party or large corporation really wants too many people applying logic to much other than how to do their job.
I think you'd find that most people who do it aren't particularly rich, they make do, just like people who live on one income for the first few years until school, except longer. In Queensland you can get a government supplied curriculum to follow which shouldn't be too hard for most people, particularly if they have tertiary education. Admittedly my wife is a trained teacher and I personally wouldn't be that keen to do it myself, but I think a lot of people could handle primary level teaching to a couple of kids easier than a teacher trying to teach a whole classroom. High school not so much.
It will never become the way the majority are educated simply because most people don't want to do it. It is a good fallback to have if the education system doesn't suit you.
the cost of homeschooling is far more expensive than the majority of household's income.
Where are you getting your figures from? By far the majority of the cost is lost income, not materials. We homeschool our kids, the teacher at the education department that monitors their progress seems happy and we don't spend anything like the average household's income doing it.
School has a lot of purposes, everything from teaching specific subjects, to social skills.
At school I saw a far greater prevalence of bullying and intimidation than anything I would call "social skills". The notion that we need the government to provide us a special environment to help us make friends seems a bit creepy to me, to be honest.
I've taken the IP address from infected emails and searched for it in my legitimate email. They were coming from my cousin's place. Having identifiable mail with the same IP makes it a lot easier and is probably what happened with this guy.
If the boss doesn't know what you do, either he is a bad boss, or you are unimportant (and replaceable).
Everybody is replaceable, including the boss. That doesn't mean everybody is equally profitable. The boss knows my job description. If you use initiative, how is your boss expected to know that without being told or shown? That's ok if you only ever do what you're told, if you do improve the business in ways that weren't asked for or expected then you need to make sure your work is recognized. The boss has other things to do than watch me and I like to present the boss with problems that I've solved before they even know about it. If I couldn't find a way to be improving how the business operates I'd get another job.
As soon as a company leaves the "the owner is the boss" stage, it's all downhill from there. In this economy, we only work in such places because there are no other places to work.
I prefer to work where the owner is the boss. YMMV.
I'd rather ask along the lines of "What would I have to do get more?" then go do it, than "Can I have more?" and be told yes or no. It's less confrontational.
It's not confrontational. It's begging, and my self-esteem is not low enough to do it. Begging says "I have no value but please give me more money anyway. Pretty please?"
You have some strange ideas and it's no wonder you find it difficult to negotiate. Asking what value they want and then providing it is in no way similar to begging. It is getting an agreement on what deserves a raise before doing it. No boss is planning to replace me, I can get a job with no more effort than a phone call to previous employers. In fact, I still do part-time contracting for my previous employer who would hire me back right now if my current job didn't work out. My current boss is under no illusion that I am employed on his sufferance. I leave jobs on good terms, not as a result of failed pay negotiations.
When negotiating a contract you get two choices: receive what you ask for, or walk away.
You have a very limited view of the possibilities that can arise from successful negotiation. You are correct when you say it's not your strength. Having an open ended discussion over a period of time can have far more varied results. In my current and previous jobs, I have employment conditions and remuneration that had never occurred to my employers.
If you just ask for a raise, it's your word only that you deserve more money.
That sounds a lot more like begging to me. I prefer to demonstrate value so I have something to negotiate with.
The boss does not need you as much as you need him.
I do not share this problem with you. I don't need any particular boss. I decided many years ago to never allow one person that much power over me. Well, except my wife. She tells me what to do and I pay her! Now that's a REAL boss.
I could separate sand and sugar and if I had no other source of sugar or my time was worth nothing I might. With the price of sugar as it is it wouldn't take many minutes of effort before it wasn't worth it, even for a truck driver.
There are plenty of men out there who are not aggressive in this way. I know I would never ask for a higher salary for myself; if the boss thought I deserved more money, he'd pay me more. If he doesn't pay me more, it means he does not believe I deserve it. Consequently, if I want more money, I'd look for another job outside the company.
I don't see asking for more as aggressive if your productivity merits it. Bosses prefer to maximize profitability. If things are going well they don't necessarily know the part you had to play in that. I make sure to tell them. It's not a bad idea to tell the boss when other workers do things well. It helps get competent people into position so that your job in turn becomes easier and you are not seen negatively as a self-promoter. Also, I'd rather ask along the lines of "What would I have to do get more?" then go do it, than "Can I have more?" and be told yes or no. It's less confrontational.
Re:i never understood this thinking
on
Sexism In Science
·
· Score: 1
classism is real and simple economics tells us money naturally gravitates to a few players. so: progressive tax rates to correct what otherwise would result in all wealth in society flowing to a few ultrawealthy
Other than the fact that it doesn't work, this idea seems flawless. In practice it does nothing to curb the excesses of the ultra-rich it just means I pay a higher rate of tax on my overtime. That's why I'm hostile to the idea. As for "simple economics tells us", HA. Economics is taught in college, not elementary school. There are more things in heaven and earth, circletimessquare, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Children are not just a lifestyle choice (we need them) and by supporting women who have them men are just doing their fair share.
I've supported my wife while she had children. That's my fair share. Having my compensation locked to the level of someone who is less productive is not fair, regardless of whether gender is a factor in their lower productivity.
You don't get charged with incitement to riot for insulting any other religion. I was sent to a religious school. I defaced the "Holy text" it was compulsory to possess, as did other students. I wasn't killed, beaten or tortured. I wasn't punished at all, they never even spoke to me about it. If the people of that religion can take it then so can Muslims. The video did not cause the riots. Making the video is not incitement. Calling on your followers to riot because of a video is incitement.
People who go on deadly riots in response to insults should be given overwhelming violence rather than appeasement. Concessions can be made to those who were offended but decide to talk about it instead of going on the rampage.
On one hand, lives are being threatened and people have been killed, and this silly video causing this stays on... because it doesn't violate some copyright.
The video isn't causing anyone to be killed.
Following your line of reasoning, if christians want "Piss Christ" banned they should riot and murder and claim "piss christ did it". If this was another religion, would you blame the {video,cartoon,picture,article} or would you blame the rioters and murderers?
However you can't (at least in Australia) just grow a crop without putting chemicals on it and all it organic. Not sure what the registration requirements are now but it takes about 7 years to develop an organic production system and it used to take about that long to get registered.
There's a lot more to organic production than just "don't put chemicals on". Other than that, I don't have an objection to this type of study. I think it would be better to do it by buying produce in a supermarket and testing it. Regardless of actual growing method, that would reveal what people need to know ie: is it worth my while to pay the premium charged in the organic section.
isn't "putting profit over all else" the very foundation of the free market capitalism?
No, at least not according to Adam Smith. As with all ideologies practice can vary considerably from the theory. I would guess that not many people who read The Wealth of Nations take the time to first read The Theory of Moral Sentiments, and presumably can not then understand the context it was written in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments The Theory of Moral Sentiments is a 1759 book by Adam Smith. It provided the ethical, philosophical, psychological, and methodological underpinnings to Smith's later works, including The Wealth of Nations (1776)
In the other case, it is as though you talked Joe into loading the gun, and selling it to Sam, then talked Sam into going to meet Bob and kill him. It that case, you did not actually perform any of the actions. And if you did not hold some kind of unusual persuasive power over them (e.g., they were "brainwashed" in some sort of highly unlikely manner) or hold some kind of coercive power over them (you kidnapped their children), then you probably did not break the law. You simply made suggestions, and the other guys should have known better.
If person B copied the App from person A, person B' actions cause me to have 5 shells instead of 10.
No, person B didn't cause you to have 10 shells instead of 5. Your number of shells not increasing is not the same as your number of shells decreasing.
I still have to point out that 'potential sales' are a widely-accepted concept in economics.
Yet there is no evidence that a given incidence of copying results in a lost sale or even a lost "potential sale" since in some cases copying IS followed by a sale.
A dollar not earned is in many ways equivilent to a dollar lost
Except it is impossible for me to steal from you something that you have never obtained.
The effect on a company bottom line is the same.
Publicly protesting the company's unethical behaviour might have the same effect on sales too, but that doesn't make it theft.
Slashdot Mirror
Where are we consumers informed of this?
The Bloomberg article linked in the summary, by a private company.
The free market dictates that consumers shouldn't hear about this
That's absurd, we are discussing it. We have heard about it and not from the government. That's not to say I'm against any and all regulation, but you can now that you know you can choose seafood from places with better standards. If you buy domestic rather than imported products you will know that your own countries standards apply.
Even when it's about something as obvious as the fact that cramming animals into tiny balls and then making them fight in gladiatorial style combat may be ethically questionable.
So is dropping pianos on people but in cartoons we tolerate it.
According to the Australian Federal Police it is not illegal, as I pointed out to you in my other post. It is probably not even illegal in the US if previous supreme court judgements about the press publishing leaked secrets were followed. Of course, Assange doesn't have the legal team the New York Times does so that probably wouldn't help.
Say an action is not illegal because a prosecutor decided not to file charges is nonsensical
sd4f is correct, at least about why no charges were laid in Australia:
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/julian-assange-has-committed-no-crime-in-australia-afp-20101217-190eb.html
Neither WikiLeaks nor its founder Julian Assange has committed any crime in Australia over the leaking of official United States government documents, the Australian Federal Police announced this afternoon.
There is nothing to charge him with.
you can see interacting with your peers, some of which will like or dislike you for no good reason as creepy if you like.
I don't see interacting with your peers as creepy, it's the idea that we need government intervention to learn how to do that.
Bullies are alive and well in corporate America, you need to learn how to deal with them at some point.
I would argue that our school system produces bullies, people who tolerate bullying on others and victims, and is indeed preparing all of them for corporate life. That's mainly what I don't like about it. Look at all the people here who complain about corporations yet work in them. Condemned by conditioning and debt to spend their days toiling for people they despise. Only few escape.
Also note, I didn't say social skills were the only value of the school system.
And note that I didn't disagree with anything else you brought up. It's just that with some kids being bullied to the point of suicide, I think social skills is something the education system needs to prove itself on, not boast about. This Australian state school apparently has reduced bullying significantly by teaching philosophy and logic. http://burandass.eq.edu.au/wcms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68&Itemid=125 If that program had been in place in a school near us, we would have given more consideration to using a state school. I'm not sure that any political party or large corporation really wants too many people applying logic to much other than how to do their job.
I think you'd find that most people who do it aren't particularly rich, they make do, just like people who live on one income for the first few years until school, except longer. In Queensland you can get a government supplied curriculum to follow which shouldn't be too hard for most people, particularly if they have tertiary education. Admittedly my wife is a trained teacher and I personally wouldn't be that keen to do it myself, but I think a lot of people could handle primary level teaching to a couple of kids easier than a teacher trying to teach a whole classroom. High school not so much.
It will never become the way the majority are educated simply because most people don't want to do it. It is a good fallback to have if the education system doesn't suit you.
They carry their rubbish in their luggage with their bombs.
the cost of homeschooling is far more expensive than the majority of household's income.
Where are you getting your figures from? By far the majority of the cost is lost income, not materials. We homeschool our kids, the teacher at the education department that monitors their progress seems happy and we don't spend anything like the average household's income doing it.
School has a lot of purposes, everything from teaching specific subjects, to social skills.
At school I saw a far greater prevalence of bullying and intimidation than anything I would call "social skills". The notion that we need the government to provide us a special environment to help us make friends seems a bit creepy to me, to be honest.
The throughput was, in fact, unlimited. If you left your connection on 24-7, you could download quite a bit per month (subject to available speed).
Your description of throughput as unlimited is at incompatible with "quite a bit" and "subject to".
I've taken the IP address from infected emails and searched for it in my legitimate email. They were coming from my cousin's place. Having identifiable mail with the same IP makes it a lot easier and is probably what happened with this guy.
If the boss doesn't know what you do, either he is a bad boss, or you are unimportant (and replaceable).
Everybody is replaceable, including the boss. That doesn't mean everybody is equally profitable. The boss knows my job description. If you use initiative, how is your boss expected to know that without being told or shown? That's ok if you only ever do what you're told, if you do improve the business in ways that weren't asked for or expected then you need to make sure your work is recognized. The boss has other things to do than watch me and I like to present the boss with problems that I've solved before they even know about it. If I couldn't find a way to be improving how the business operates I'd get another job.
As soon as a company leaves the "the owner is the boss" stage, it's all downhill from there. In this economy, we only work in such places because there are no other places to work.
I prefer to work where the owner is the boss. YMMV.
I'd rather ask along the lines of "What would I have to do get more?" then go do it, than "Can I have more?" and be told yes or no. It's less confrontational.
It's not confrontational. It's begging, and my self-esteem is not low enough to do it. Begging says "I have no value but please give me more money anyway. Pretty please?"
You have some strange ideas and it's no wonder you find it difficult to negotiate. Asking what value they want and then providing it is in no way similar to begging. It is getting an agreement on what deserves a raise before doing it. No boss is planning to replace me, I can get a job with no more effort than a phone call to previous employers. In fact, I still do part-time contracting for my previous employer who would hire me back right now if my current job didn't work out. My current boss is under no illusion that I am employed on his sufferance. I leave jobs on good terms, not as a result of failed pay negotiations.
When negotiating a contract you get two choices: receive what you ask for, or walk away.
You have a very limited view of the possibilities that can arise from successful negotiation. You are correct when you say it's not your strength. Having an open ended discussion over a period of time can have far more varied results. In my current and previous jobs, I have employment conditions and remuneration that had never occurred to my employers.
If you just ask for a raise, it's your word only that you deserve more money.
That sounds a lot more like begging to me. I prefer to demonstrate value so I have something to negotiate with.
The boss does not need you as much as you need him.
I do not share this problem with you. I don't need any particular boss. I decided many years ago to never allow one person that much power over me. Well, except my wife. She tells me what to do and I pay her! Now that's a REAL boss.
I refuse to sugar your butt!
I could separate sand and sugar and if I had no other source of sugar or my time was worth nothing I might. With the price of sugar as it is it wouldn't take many minutes of effort before it wasn't worth it, even for a truck driver.
There are plenty of men out there who are not aggressive in this way. I know I would never ask for a higher salary for myself; if the boss thought I deserved more money, he'd pay me more. If he doesn't pay me more, it means he does not believe I deserve it. Consequently, if I want more money, I'd look for another job outside the company.
I don't see asking for more as aggressive if your productivity merits it. Bosses prefer to maximize profitability. If things are going well they don't necessarily know the part you had to play in that. I make sure to tell them. It's not a bad idea to tell the boss when other workers do things well. It helps get competent people into position so that your job in turn becomes easier and you are not seen negatively as a self-promoter. Also, I'd rather ask along the lines of "What would I have to do get more?" then go do it, than "Can I have more?" and be told yes or no. It's less confrontational.
classism is real and simple economics tells us money naturally gravitates to a few players. so: progressive tax rates to correct what otherwise would result in all wealth in society flowing to a few ultrawealthy
Other than the fact that it doesn't work, this idea seems flawless. In practice it does nothing to curb the excesses of the ultra-rich it just means I pay a higher rate of tax on my overtime. That's why I'm hostile to the idea. As for "simple economics tells us", HA. Economics is taught in college, not elementary school. There are more things in heaven and earth, circletimessquare, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Children are not just a lifestyle choice (we need them) and by supporting women who have them men are just doing their fair share.
I've supported my wife while she had children. That's my fair share. Having my compensation locked to the level of someone who is less productive is not fair, regardless of whether gender is a factor in their lower productivity.
You don't get charged with incitement to riot for insulting any other religion. I was sent to a religious school. I defaced the "Holy text" it was compulsory to possess, as did other students. I wasn't killed, beaten or tortured. I wasn't punished at all, they never even spoke to me about it. If the people of that religion can take it then so can Muslims. The video did not cause the riots. Making the video is not incitement. Calling on your followers to riot because of a video is incitement.
People who go on deadly riots in response to insults should be given overwhelming violence rather than appeasement. Concessions can be made to those who were offended but decide to talk about it instead of going on the rampage.
On one hand, lives are being threatened and people have been killed, and this silly video causing this stays on... because it doesn't violate some copyright.
The video isn't causing anyone to be killed.
Following your line of reasoning, if christians want "Piss Christ" banned they should riot and murder and claim "piss christ did it". If this was another religion, would you blame the {video,cartoon,picture,article} or would you blame the rioters and murderers?
That man is made in god's image in the Torah whereas this would probably be considered shirk in islam.
However you can't (at least in Australia) just grow a crop without putting chemicals on it and all it organic. Not sure what the registration requirements are now but it takes about 7 years to develop an organic production system and it used to take about that long to get registered.
There's a lot more to organic production than just "don't put chemicals on". Other than that, I don't have an objection to this type of study. I think it would be better to do it by buying produce in a supermarket and testing it. Regardless of actual growing method, that would reveal what people need to know ie: is it worth my while to pay the premium charged in the organic section.
isn't "putting profit over all else" the very foundation of the free market capitalism?
No, at least not according to Adam Smith. As with all ideologies practice can vary considerably from the theory. I would guess that not many people who read The Wealth of Nations take the time to first read The Theory of Moral Sentiments, and presumably can not then understand the context it was written in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments
The Theory of Moral Sentiments is a 1759 book by Adam Smith. It provided the ethical, philosophical, psychological, and methodological underpinnings to Smith's later works, including The Wealth of Nations (1776)
In the other case, it is as though you talked Joe into loading the gun, and selling it to Sam, then talked Sam into going to meet Bob and kill him. It that case, you did not actually perform any of the actions. And if you did not hold some kind of unusual persuasive power over them (e.g., they were "brainwashed" in some sort of highly unlikely manner) or hold some kind of coercive power over them (you kidnapped their children), then you probably did not break the law. You simply made suggestions, and the other guys should have known better.
That could probably still result in conspiracy charges. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)
If person B copied the App from person A, person B' actions cause me to have 5 shells instead of 10.
No, person B didn't cause you to have 10 shells instead of 5. Your number of shells not increasing is not the same as your number of shells decreasing.
I still have to point out that 'potential sales' are a widely-accepted concept in economics.
Yet there is no evidence that a given incidence of copying results in a lost sale or even a lost "potential sale" since in some cases copying IS followed by a sale.
A dollar not earned is in many ways equivilent to a dollar lost
Except it is impossible for me to steal from you something that you have never obtained.
The effect on a company bottom line is the same.
Publicly protesting the company's unethical behaviour might have the same effect on sales too, but that doesn't make it theft.