We're probably selling some weapons to Yemen as well. Not officially (the Saudis wouldn't like that) of course, but we'll avert our eyes just enough for the right gun runners to get through.
You would think that the U.S. would have figured out that we don't need to get involved in expensive overseas conflicts we have little chance of winning. It's far easier to let the locals who've hated each other for generations take care of it for us while we sell them the means to do it.
That requires proving intent and a certain amount of premeditation on his part. If he left some kind of angry online screed outlining that this was his intent all along, sure call him a murderer. Otherwise he may have just been out of his mind and not intending to kill himself or anyone else. The summary indicates that he's still a teenager, so I would be more likely to believe that he just lacked the ability to control his emotions and got swept up in it.
If he somehow managed to live and had to face trial for this, it would almost certainly be on manslaughter charges. Let's call it murder on if it is in fact murder, not because calling it murder makes us feel better or allows us to cast further moral judgement on this man's actions through the weight of the words alone. You can still despise him perfectly well without labeling him a murderer.
It was theoretically legal, so Valve just let it happen since they're typically pretty hands off and since they get a cut of sales, they don't have much financial incentive to care either. However, a few states got sick of companies like Valve being able to engage in (or a least facilitate) what is for all intents and purposes online gambling despite laws that prohibit this in its most typical forms. So Valve had no choice but to clamp down on their users in turn. If Valve weren't putting a stop to it, they would be the ones in legal trouble.
You do understand the difference between a mean and significant statistical outliers right? Most incandescent bulbs are not rated anywhere near that long (most of the commercial ones were something like 1000 hours when I was still buying them) and the ones that could last that long are vastly different in design than the cheap commercial bulbs that were being sold.
You're comparing an apple cart to a banana plantation.
This was utterly stupid of them. They had to know that this would only draw more attention to the fact and they had to know that they couldn't prohibit benchmarking. That simply wasn't going to happen. And now that they've had to retract this idiotic policy, they've practically ensured that every tech site is going to do loads of benchmarking when they might not have otherwise been interested (there were a few when Meltdown and Spectre first came out, but I haven't seen a lot of benchmarks for the newer varients), but because Intel turned this into a big story, now everyone is going to want to do benchmarks to ride the renewed wave of interest.
This was like getting pulled over by a cop and shouting, "Nothing suspicious in the trunk!" before the cop has even had a chance to ask for your license and registration.
The summary seems to imply that luxury towers are the biggest offenders and I can't imagine the city owning any of those at all. Of course the source is HuffPo and if you click through the article "luxury towers" is a link to a different article about Trump Tower, so for all I know you know more about it than they do and they just wanted to make a jab at Trump.
Also, it's Amazon we're talking about. It seems as though every other month there's some new story about how they mistreat their workers or there's some conflict between them and the city of Seattle. They're one of the last companies you would suspect of doing something as the GP discussed.
Actually leaving your body and going on some kind of spirit journey is fake, but some psychedelic substances can give the perception of out of body experiences. I've had experiences where I've felt as though I'm floating outside of my body or otherwise no longer anchored to it, even though I really know that I was still physically sitting on the coach.
You don't even need to be high for your brain to experience sensory perceptions that aren't real. Phantom limb, for example, is one such well established and researched phenomenon.
That was my thought. However, the academy seems to have snubbed the online streaming services in the past. I remember that Beasts of No Nations didn't receive any nominations despite being well regarded and receiving nominations (and even wins) in many other awards.
I suspect that some of it might also be as a potential way to recoup costs from big budget productions like Game of Thrones where you could do a theatrical release every few years that might pull in a few tens of millions of dollars that you might not otherwise get. Occasionally you make a 90 minute episode that gets a theatrical release. I bet that even people who own the subscription service would pay to see it on a big screen, especially if it's a kind of fantasy epic like Game of Thrones.
That's $21M that goes back into the economy instead of an offshore hedge fund.
Perhaps that's a good argument for reducing the tax rates in those brackets in order to make it more profitable to reinvest the money in the American economy as opposed to overseas.
That's the problem with CEO salaries: While there are formulas and charts explaining exactly how much you should pay a line worker at McDonalds (and it happens to be "just enough so that desperate people will apply"), there is no formula for figuring out how much you should pay a CEO.
There aren't nice formulas and charts for many other things as well. CEOs are worth whatever they can charge. You'd hardly disparage any other employee of a company from asking for and getting a raise, so why should a CEO be any different? Also, unless you own stock in a company, why do you care what they do with their money. Whether you believe they are overpaying a CEO does not change your life. If you do own stock, go to a shareholders meeting and present your case for why the CEO should be compensated less.
If CEO pay is going up, I suspect it is because the largest companies are themselves becoming larger as well as international players. It doesn't make much sense for the CEO/owner of a 20 person company to make 300x the salary of the average worker. It's probably not possible financially. However, get a company that employs tens or even hundreds of thousands of employees and it's not difficult to imagine, especially if most of those employees are low skill or do not command high wages. What you should really look at is CEO wage growth relative to revenue growth of companies. Companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Google are all earning above $100 billion yearly. Even seemingly exorbitant CEO pay is a drop in the bucket and probably a much smaller percentage of company revenue than the CEO pay for smaller sized companies.
There's also a mistaken belief that if a CEO were not paid as much that other workers would receive more. This is unlikely to be the case as the difference would likely be paid out to shareholders as dividends or reinvested by the company. The only thing that will result in wage increases for the rank and file is greater demand for their labor. Unless another company is willing to pay more, you're unlikely to see an increase in wages for those positions.
I think a lot of it probably has to do with Google's workforce tending to be younger and perhaps fresh out of college. I suspect that most computer science programs have an ethics course that their students are required to take, but I suspect that it's a pretty worthless class that isn't well taught and that students don't take seriously. The moral compass of the young is not yet fully developed. I'd say it's even spotty at best in a lot of adults.
People have a strong tendency to believe that what they're doing is right, and that their cause is just. Ask anyone from either side of a protest where Antifa and various alt-right groups show up about why they're their and they'll tell you that it's because they needed to do the right thing. You could argue that they're both misguided in their own ways so it's not such a simple dichotomy, but the point is that everyone there believes themselves to be there for the right reasons.
I think that it's rather rare for people to take a step back and actually think about whether what they're doing is moral. Most people tend to just trudge on ahead until they suddenly find themselves up to their necks in a mire.
I think you're missing the point. Someone will just come along and say that we need something else, say tax accountants. At what point do you draw a line (and how fair or arbitrary is your line) and what prevent its it from becoming a case of "let's subsidize everything" that we currently have, which leads to the exact same situation. Maybe you get a slightly better designed system, but we're back to square one.
Subsidizing anything raises the price. You might think that you're getting it cheaper by playing economic shells games, but if you could actually get something for free by doing this, we'd do it with everything and nothing would have any cost.
China doesn't have much a problem with this as their massive population means that even if they lose 1% (and even if brain drain pulls disproportionately from the the top, it doesn't take specifically from it) which is a staggering number of people with respect to the populations of some other countries, it doesn't impact China much at all.
I think that China's success had much, much less to do with talent returning in the long term (though this has happened) and more to do with a market economy and outside foreign investment allowing the Chinese economy to kick into high gear and cease to languish under the inefficient centrally planned economy that preceded the reforms.
I think you're forgetting the part where the government forbids the sale of the generic completely. As has been the case up until now.
Also, if this were a common and accurate portrayal of events, why am I able to buy generic versions of many other types of drugs and medications? Shouldn't this have happened in ever other instance as well?
U.S. companies and government agencies already get attacked all the time. Sometimes its actions by foreign governments, sometimes criminals looking to make a buck, or occasionally even just some bored hacker in the country doing it for the thrill. If you're naive enough to think anyone was holding back because of some rules we had in place, I've got a router in bridge mode to sell you.
As long as the U.S. (or any other western country for that matter) maintains a higher degree of economic and personal freedom than other countries, it's going to draw in people. There's a bit of a dark underside to that as we're taking some of the most highly skilled individuals from those countries, but it's quite hard to blame anyone who wants a better life for themselves or their family.
If it weren't for the actions of government which have largely created this problem in the first place, I think some people would be more willing to trust them.
Even then, I'm not sure I believe that government should subsidize the costs of medical school. Sure you can argue that the world needs doctors and this will help ensure that the world gets its doctors, but someone else will come along and say that the world needs auto mechanics as well. So we might decide to pay their tuition in full as well, but someone else might point out that no one really needs a car and can just take a bicycle to work and that it's morally wrong to make them pay to subsidize the automotive industry and all the pollution in creates.
Maybe we all settle on some convoluted system that we can (mostly) agree with, or will at least collectively agree to use since we all get a little bit of something we like, even though no one is really ultimately happy with how it turned out. Of course this system will not be unchanged. It won't take more than five minutes for some politician to start proposing changes and now there will be an endless fight over the system with bits getting ripped out and special interests getting their own bits jammed in instead.
Also, I don't think that most alumni donations come from billionaires. There aren't nearly enough of them. Instead it's a larger number of moderately well off individuals who have accrued wealth across their own life times and wish to contribute back. Not everyone wants to leave everything to their own children after all.
So one tonne of this mineral will remove 5 tonnes of atmospheric CO2 per year. One article I found based on a quick Google search gives an estimate of about 1,100 tonnes of CO2 emitted every second. Perhaps some of this could be captured more easily where it's being generated, but we'd need to manufacture a lot of this stuff if we wanted to be carbon neutral with just this technology alone.
U.S. health care is pretty good all things considered, but a big part of the problem is that the U.S. is just terribly unhealthy. One-third of the country is obese (we consume more sugar per capita than anyone else, and we're almost 25% higher than the next country) and we're near the top of the lists for almost all types of hard drug use.
The other problem is that our healthcare system is some terrible amalgamation that's the worst of a free market and worst of a national system cobbled together. When people get unhealthy, they don't want to get checkups early because they don't know what it will cost them. We don't have the free clinic visits of some countries that can nip a lot of expensive problems in the bud if dealt with early, but you can't possibly get a hospital or clinic to give you a price for any of their services before you buy. In some cases they don't even have that information.
There's a public healthcare system in Medicare and Medicaid but it has its own problems and is too frequently abused by medical providers who make false charges. The private healthcare system isn't terribly great either since you can't go across state lines to buy insurance, so in some cases you're stuck with too few providers for reasonable competition to take place.
Yeah, I'm quite skeptical of how open the internet will be or how much they'll crack down on citizens who access information that they don't like.
Reporters Without Borders has Cuba ranked 172 out of 180 for press freedom in 2018.However, the U.S. is a pathetic 45th, so I don't think I can give them too much shit.
Slashdot Mirror
We're probably selling some weapons to Yemen as well. Not officially (the Saudis wouldn't like that) of course, but we'll avert our eyes just enough for the right gun runners to get through.
You would think that the U.S. would have figured out that we don't need to get involved in expensive overseas conflicts we have little chance of winning. It's far easier to let the locals who've hated each other for generations take care of it for us while we sell them the means to do it.
I'd at least like to hear Google's side of this first.
Would hate to unpack the pitchfork for nothing and all that.
That requires proving intent and a certain amount of premeditation on his part. If he left some kind of angry online screed outlining that this was his intent all along, sure call him a murderer. Otherwise he may have just been out of his mind and not intending to kill himself or anyone else. The summary indicates that he's still a teenager, so I would be more likely to believe that he just lacked the ability to control his emotions and got swept up in it.
If he somehow managed to live and had to face trial for this, it would almost certainly be on manslaughter charges. Let's call it murder on if it is in fact murder, not because calling it murder makes us feel better or allows us to cast further moral judgement on this man's actions through the weight of the words alone. You can still despise him perfectly well without labeling him a murderer.
It was theoretically legal, so Valve just let it happen since they're typically pretty hands off and since they get a cut of sales, they don't have much financial incentive to care either. However, a few states got sick of companies like Valve being able to engage in (or a least facilitate) what is for all intents and purposes online gambling despite laws that prohibit this in its most typical forms. So Valve had no choice but to clamp down on their users in turn. If Valve weren't putting a stop to it, they would be the ones in legal trouble.
You do understand the difference between a mean and significant statistical outliers right? Most incandescent bulbs are not rated anywhere near that long (most of the commercial ones were something like 1000 hours when I was still buying them) and the ones that could last that long are vastly different in design than the cheap commercial bulbs that were being sold.
You're comparing an apple cart to a banana plantation.
This was utterly stupid of them. They had to know that this would only draw more attention to the fact and they had to know that they couldn't prohibit benchmarking. That simply wasn't going to happen. And now that they've had to retract this idiotic policy, they've practically ensured that every tech site is going to do loads of benchmarking when they might not have otherwise been interested (there were a few when Meltdown and Spectre first came out, but I haven't seen a lot of benchmarks for the newer varients), but because Intel turned this into a big story, now everyone is going to want to do benchmarks to ride the renewed wave of interest.
This was like getting pulled over by a cop and shouting, "Nothing suspicious in the trunk!" before the cop has even had a chance to ask for your license and registration.
I wonder how many of those sites are so old that when they were first made, PHP was the sane choice?
I know it's a dumb joke, but lets not let this become the new "Al Gore claims he invented the Internet".
That's just poppycock. Everyone knows that he actually invented the algorithm.
While you're at it, tell him that the communist party needs a rebranding. Lemon Party sounds catchy.
And if there's anything that will help clean thoughts of Tank Man from the minds of people, it's definitely tub girl.
The summary seems to imply that luxury towers are the biggest offenders and I can't imagine the city owning any of those at all. Of course the source is HuffPo and if you click through the article "luxury towers" is a link to a different article about Trump Tower, so for all I know you know more about it than they do and they just wanted to make a jab at Trump.
They do at least link to the report: https://www.urbangreencouncil.org/content/projects/blueprint-efficiency-80x50-buildings-partnership-report. I gave it a quick glance and couldn't find the 70% figure that they mention, but I did not look very long or hard.
Also, it's Amazon we're talking about. It seems as though every other month there's some new story about how they mistreat their workers or there's some conflict between them and the city of Seattle. They're one of the last companies you would suspect of doing something as the GP discussed.
Actually leaving your body and going on some kind of spirit journey is fake, but some psychedelic substances can give the perception of out of body experiences. I've had experiences where I've felt as though I'm floating outside of my body or otherwise no longer anchored to it, even though I really know that I was still physically sitting on the coach.
You don't even need to be high for your brain to experience sensory perceptions that aren't real. Phantom limb, for example, is one such well established and researched phenomenon.
That was my thought. However, the academy seems to have snubbed the online streaming services in the past. I remember that Beasts of No Nations didn't receive any nominations despite being well regarded and receiving nominations (and even wins) in many other awards.
Cannes even recently changed their rules to prevent anything that doesn't get a theatrical run in France from entering the competition. Normally this wouldn't be a problem as Netflix could just do a single theater release, except there's another strange French law that prohibits films from appearing on streaming services until 36 months after their theatrical release.
I suspect that some of it might also be as a potential way to recoup costs from big budget productions like Game of Thrones where you could do a theatrical release every few years that might pull in a few tens of millions of dollars that you might not otherwise get. Occasionally you make a 90 minute episode that gets a theatrical release. I bet that even people who own the subscription service would pay to see it on a big screen, especially if it's a kind of fantasy epic like Game of Thrones.
That's $21M that goes back into the economy instead of an offshore hedge fund.
Perhaps that's a good argument for reducing the tax rates in those brackets in order to make it more profitable to reinvest the money in the American economy as opposed to overseas.
That's the problem with CEO salaries: While there are formulas and charts explaining exactly how much you should pay a line worker at McDonalds (and it happens to be "just enough so that desperate people will apply"), there is no formula for figuring out how much you should pay a CEO.
There aren't nice formulas and charts for many other things as well. CEOs are worth whatever they can charge. You'd hardly disparage any other employee of a company from asking for and getting a raise, so why should a CEO be any different? Also, unless you own stock in a company, why do you care what they do with their money. Whether you believe they are overpaying a CEO does not change your life. If you do own stock, go to a shareholders meeting and present your case for why the CEO should be compensated less.
If CEO pay is going up, I suspect it is because the largest companies are themselves becoming larger as well as international players. It doesn't make much sense for the CEO/owner of a 20 person company to make 300x the salary of the average worker. It's probably not possible financially. However, get a company that employs tens or even hundreds of thousands of employees and it's not difficult to imagine, especially if most of those employees are low skill or do not command high wages. What you should really look at is CEO wage growth relative to revenue growth of companies. Companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Google are all earning above $100 billion yearly. Even seemingly exorbitant CEO pay is a drop in the bucket and probably a much smaller percentage of company revenue than the CEO pay for smaller sized companies.
There's also a mistaken belief that if a CEO were not paid as much that other workers would receive more. This is unlikely to be the case as the difference would likely be paid out to shareholders as dividends or reinvested by the company. The only thing that will result in wage increases for the rank and file is greater demand for their labor. Unless another company is willing to pay more, you're unlikely to see an increase in wages for those positions.
and in a theater.
You say that as though it's an advantage.
I think a lot of it probably has to do with Google's workforce tending to be younger and perhaps fresh out of college. I suspect that most computer science programs have an ethics course that their students are required to take, but I suspect that it's a pretty worthless class that isn't well taught and that students don't take seriously. The moral compass of the young is not yet fully developed. I'd say it's even spotty at best in a lot of adults.
People have a strong tendency to believe that what they're doing is right, and that their cause is just. Ask anyone from either side of a protest where Antifa and various alt-right groups show up about why they're their and they'll tell you that it's because they needed to do the right thing. You could argue that they're both misguided in their own ways so it's not such a simple dichotomy, but the point is that everyone there believes themselves to be there for the right reasons.
I think that it's rather rare for people to take a step back and actually think about whether what they're doing is moral. Most people tend to just trudge on ahead until they suddenly find themselves up to their necks in a mire.
I think you're missing the point. Someone will just come along and say that we need something else, say tax accountants. At what point do you draw a line (and how fair or arbitrary is your line) and what prevent its it from becoming a case of "let's subsidize everything" that we currently have, which leads to the exact same situation. Maybe you get a slightly better designed system, but we're back to square one.
Subsidizing anything raises the price. You might think that you're getting it cheaper by playing economic shells games, but if you could actually get something for free by doing this, we'd do it with everything and nothing would have any cost.
China doesn't have much a problem with this as their massive population means that even if they lose 1% (and even if brain drain pulls disproportionately from the the top, it doesn't take specifically from it) which is a staggering number of people with respect to the populations of some other countries, it doesn't impact China much at all.
I think that China's success had much, much less to do with talent returning in the long term (though this has happened) and more to do with a market economy and outside foreign investment allowing the Chinese economy to kick into high gear and cease to languish under the inefficient centrally planned economy that preceded the reforms.
I think you're forgetting the part where the government forbids the sale of the generic completely. As has been the case up until now.
Also, if this were a common and accurate portrayal of events, why am I able to buy generic versions of many other types of drugs and medications? Shouldn't this have happened in ever other instance as well?
U.S. companies and government agencies already get attacked all the time. Sometimes its actions by foreign governments, sometimes criminals looking to make a buck, or occasionally even just some bored hacker in the country doing it for the thrill. If you're naive enough to think anyone was holding back because of some rules we had in place, I've got a router in bridge mode to sell you.
As long as the U.S. (or any other western country for that matter) maintains a higher degree of economic and personal freedom than other countries, it's going to draw in people. There's a bit of a dark underside to that as we're taking some of the most highly skilled individuals from those countries, but it's quite hard to blame anyone who wants a better life for themselves or their family.
If it weren't for the actions of government which have largely created this problem in the first place, I think some people would be more willing to trust them.
Even then, I'm not sure I believe that government should subsidize the costs of medical school. Sure you can argue that the world needs doctors and this will help ensure that the world gets its doctors, but someone else will come along and say that the world needs auto mechanics as well. So we might decide to pay their tuition in full as well, but someone else might point out that no one really needs a car and can just take a bicycle to work and that it's morally wrong to make them pay to subsidize the automotive industry and all the pollution in creates.
Maybe we all settle on some convoluted system that we can (mostly) agree with, or will at least collectively agree to use since we all get a little bit of something we like, even though no one is really ultimately happy with how it turned out. Of course this system will not be unchanged. It won't take more than five minutes for some politician to start proposing changes and now there will be an endless fight over the system with bits getting ripped out and special interests getting their own bits jammed in instead.
Also, I don't think that most alumni donations come from billionaires. There aren't nearly enough of them. Instead it's a larger number of moderately well off individuals who have accrued wealth across their own life times and wish to contribute back. Not everyone wants to leave everything to their own children after all.
So one tonne of this mineral will remove 5 tonnes of atmospheric CO2 per year. One article I found based on a quick Google search gives an estimate of about 1,100 tonnes of CO2 emitted every second. Perhaps some of this could be captured more easily where it's being generated, but we'd need to manufacture a lot of this stuff if we wanted to be carbon neutral with just this technology alone.
U.S. health care is pretty good all things considered, but a big part of the problem is that the U.S. is just terribly unhealthy. One-third of the country is obese (we consume more sugar per capita than anyone else, and we're almost 25% higher than the next country) and we're near the top of the lists for almost all types of hard drug use.
The other problem is that our healthcare system is some terrible amalgamation that's the worst of a free market and worst of a national system cobbled together. When people get unhealthy, they don't want to get checkups early because they don't know what it will cost them. We don't have the free clinic visits of some countries that can nip a lot of expensive problems in the bud if dealt with early, but you can't possibly get a hospital or clinic to give you a price for any of their services before you buy. In some cases they don't even have that information.
There's a public healthcare system in Medicare and Medicaid but it has its own problems and is too frequently abused by medical providers who make false charges. The private healthcare system isn't terribly great either since you can't go across state lines to buy insurance, so in some cases you're stuck with too few providers for reasonable competition to take place.
Yeah, I'm quite skeptical of how open the internet will be or how much they'll crack down on citizens who access information that they don't like.
Reporters Without Borders has Cuba ranked 172 out of 180 for press freedom in 2018.However, the U.S. is a pathetic 45th, so I don't think I can give them too much shit.