Probably more qualified than most scientist. Being used to public speaking puts him ahead of the game if anything. This kind of thing tends to be more broad than deep. In the occasions where it does go into deep and narrow specifics, those are mostly gotchas, they normally do have answers but unless you know that specific one it is hard to come up with an answer without time to think about it.
I don't disagree, I think I was kind of saying something similar. However if you pay attention you will notice how often people change their tune about so called free speech when they like or dislike the person in question or what was said. For example very few of the people defending the duck commander actually disagree with his comment, and very many of the same people called loudly for Bashir to be fired.
FYI, this is common to everyone, not just one group. Still some people do rise about it somehow.
Anonymous nobodies can say dumb thing all day long with lesser consequences because they have less to lose. If you are making your money in the public eye, you also suffer from its displeasure. There is no way around it. Also, everyone is a hypocrite when it comes to this stuff, people turn from supposed supporters of free speech, as if that should protect your job, to demanding resignations for saying the wrong thing all the time.
Capitalism is how money works when society sets up a certain set of legal rules. Say, for example, the government arresting you or fining you because you failed to follow some kind of copy write law, or sold a medical drug the government thinks another company owns. Indeed the idea of property itself requires a certain social norm and agreement. Genghis Khan is how money works when it is left alone.
FYI, if Capitalism worked perfectly, there would never be economic bubbles or monopolies.
Kind of in the way not living near tigers makes you less likely to be eaten by one. Sure an escaped zoo tiger *might* eat you, but is just very unlikely.
No disease is magic, basic behavioural changes can be very effective in reducing their spread. We need to remind people we already know everything needed to stop the spread of HIV.
FYI, the reason so many love Peter Jacksons films is he delivers exactly what he is promising you. He recognizes that the works he is retelling are masterpieces and stays true to them.
By comparison, so many SF works get butchered by Hollywood and a lot of it is deliberate. Before going to see Starship Troopers I was very confused that Hollywood had made it into a movie in the first place. I was well aware it expressed ideas and concepts that Hollywood would not be comfortable with. I just didn't understand at the time that movies makers thought they should "improve" or "comment upon" these classics, but would give them the same name to sell tickets. Mind you, I am only a moderate Heinlein fan, while Troops brought up interesting questions, I did not always agree with Heinleins answers, which is fine BTW.
I walked away from the movie understanding is was at least farce. I did not see it as satire and still do not because the director does not really satire the work in question or address the issues brought up, he really just goes off in his own direction. Rather than make his own movie and have his ideas stand on their own two feet, he simply told the audience they were getting one thing (starship troopers) and instead gave the audience another (was it anti-fascist propaganda? An assertion the current military are fascists? the world of the movie bears little resemblance to our own and how exactly would you deal with an enemy you simply wants to kill you? FYI that is what wrong with Troopers also, our real world enemies are nothing like the bugs)
The same was true of I Robot and so many other movies, it is unclear if Hollywood does not understand the books or if they just think (incorrectly) that the stories they want to tell are better. Paradoxically, many great movies really are just retelling of classic stories that Hollywood renamed, perhaps to hide their origin and make it look like their own work? So here is a tip for Hollywood, we the audience DO understand what is going on, you are not fooling anyone. If you want to retell a great story, do that and tell the audience we are getting that. If you want to tell your own story, then do that and make it clear before I pay money for the ticket. Until then we have no choice but to pay very close attention to what those critics you so hate say about a movie, because we have no other way of know what we are putting our money down for otherwise.
Interesting aside, I really liked Fight Club, but at first had no desire to see it. The commercials made it look like another dumb fist fight movie, I only saw it once I found out it was something more.
Utilities are monopolies and thus government regulated. Because everyone must purchase services from the utility, they have very stringent ethics rules of necessity. And trust me, if they HAD been contributing to liberal causes, politicians, especially conservative ones, would have been beside themselves with outrage.
As for solar power itself, power utilities donâ(TM)t like them because they reduce utility profits, period. There is no real science behind their dislike. As for the specifics of the propaganda against solar power, maybe it was accurate, maybe not I suppose we would have to see it first. But if money is being sent secretly and lied about, on the face of it I am unsure how much I would trust such information.
"Clearly the preparers of this report believe in the parable of the broken window and think it's a great way to dig yourself out of a hole and into prosperity.
I'd be happy to help... only I seem to have misplaced my slingshot..."
Just so you know, this argument is easily debunked, or rather in no way applies to our government domestic spending today. A most basic first problem is the argument assumes 100% waste, literally no public benefit however minor. Wars might be another matter, and frankly based on history are probably closer to what the author was talking about in the first place.
The parable for our current situation is more like, government takes window for school, hospital, or orphanage, person has to buy new one. The basic logical flaw people who look at the argument often make is they are confusing increased GDP with increased human benefit. It is perfectly possible to increase GDP while lowering human benefit, which is what is happening in the example given in the parable, you are just exchanging uncertain consumption for certain consumption.
...then you effectively are proving everyone knows what the term Scout is used for in reference to youth organizations. They could as easily been the Hacker Pioneers, the Hacker Navigators or the Hacker Pathfinders.
I know this will be unpopular, but this is probably one of the less bad infringement cases I have heard of.
Wait, IANAL but. Under Slander and Libel you have to show harm. False advertising is prosmising something you don't deliver on. Opinions that "these are the best waffles in the world" and "my salesman was the nicest and most helpful person ever" have never been an issue because they are opinion. Heck resturants advertise the best waffles in the world all the time, and since it can't be objectively proven...
So again what is the exact crime, breaking Yelp's TOS?
You are wrong, maybe not technically but in theme. Being careless can and in many cases should be a crime. No drunk driver intends to kill anyone.
Zimmerman is certainly NOT guilty of any aggravating circumstances and I can even believe that he is probably a basically good person who intended to do the right thing. The basic problem is his behavior was reckless and in a way that was clearly dangerous to other people.
When a policeman confronts a person he clearly identifies himself for a reason. He is saying, " I am armed, will take lethal action if needed and BTW I am acting under the authority of the community and government. If you have problem with that take it up with the judge, but for now you need to do what I say. " Police get LOTS of training on how to approach people and control a situation. These procedures exist because they really do work and it is dangerous both to the police officer and the community if they are not followed.
Zimmerman simply did not have this training, was not qualified to do what he was trying. As a result he was very much a danger to the community, I am sure that was not his intent, but is was none the less true. Zimmerman was ignorant of this, as BTW are many here apparently, and to an extent had been misled by a great deal of misinformation propagated for various political and personal reasons. Still the same could be said of drunk drivers, they just did not know how dangerous their actions really were, it took public education and laws to enforce behavior to turn the corner on drunk driving.
Which is why I am posting this, I want people to understand that conflict avoidance IS the best policy unless you are trained to handle a situation. Watch and report is fine, but anything further and unless you happened to be a cop, you do not know what you are doing.
Basically that is the problem, the prices do not reflect true delivery costs by government mandate. The USPS is mandated to provide certain types of services at a certain cost no matter what.
Effectively Netflix got low prices because they knew how to get their packages classified as protected mail. Also they really DID work very hard to make their packages as easy to sort and deliver as possible. They spent a lot of time working closely with the USPS to make a package that was easy for them to sort, they even went so far as to hire a bunch of USPS personnel to consult on how to do this.
One more point, CDâ(TM)s are super cheap, the costs are controlled by the publishers, so they can make or break Gamefly and Netflix.
Then you of all people should know the pro defense element of the Republicans would absolutely have come to GWB defense, and in fact did while the Democrats were complaining about the Patriot act in the first place. BTW, they are kind of coming to defend the program under Obama also, just not very strongly, and the libertarian wing is much more emboldened
The leopards have not changed their spots. Take the Tea Party for example, it is not that they were somehow pro deficit and tax during the Bush years, it is that they did not see their way clear to grabbing their muskets, tri-corner hats and protesting in public until Obama. This is kind of the same thing. I will agree that Left wingers are not as noisy as they would have been with Bush, but there is no doubt they have been complaining about the NSA also. OTOH the Republicans are doing the same thing in reverse. It is more of a volume control thing on both sides.
What is key is no one, right now, is willing to invest in supporting Obama on NSA spying. His own party dislikes it and the natural allies of defense, defense minded Republicans, wonâ(TM)t help. Thus this is a good chance to get something done on the issue.
FYI, in communist countries Right wing is the communist and pro-government party, you are comparing apples and oranges. Actually when you do a survey of people self-proclaimed leanings and opinions, right wing tends to mean accepts authority and left wing tends to mean helping people as individuals.
I am pretty sure I hear plenty of complaints about the NSA out of so called left wing media, the only different is I hear it out of right wing media also now.
Where did you get the idea the mass media is all left wing, was it because you were told so by Fox, Limbaugh, Glen Beck, the Wall Street Journal.......really how many TV, news papers and radio stations does right wing need to be mass media too?
Actually no, GWB would only have been attacked by the Left for the most part, the Right mostly would have defended GWB for doing what was needed to protect our country. The response from the pro defense politicians is decidedly mute, they are simply choosing not to defend he President, at least not very much.
These intrusions by the NSA are a lot like things that have been going on all along (note I did not say it was good). Basically the opportunity for progress on this issue is precisely because Obama is the President, the Left is naturally suspicious of police and spying, while the Right is simply suspicious of Obama. (FYI, my favorite story about this is back when GWB was in power the Left would complain, what if someone you didnâ(TM)t like had this kind of power, and all too often the Right would reply, but I trust the people on power right nowâ¦)
OK, so revenue problems were industry wide, and they way the company restructured was to merge. So on the face of it, looks like there was simply over growth in the companies followed by basically downsizing. No one likes it but it happens union or not.
So who fared better from your observations, Union members or non-Union members? Also did salaries go back up after the restructure? How is the ratio of company profits to salary today vs. in the past?
Well, obviously I don't know the details of this case but let me throw out a few things.
First, maybe she really was in a bad Union, bad Unions, bad workers and bad management can all make a business go out of business. Film at 11. In fact I want to start educating workers about this exactly this, what makes a good union vs. a bad one, what they can legitimately expect a union to do for them vs. what they should not expect.
But how certain are you that it was the Union, and only the Union, that caused all the problems? Was this company really making just as much profit as every other company in the industry did, and it was only the salaries of Unions members that ate up that profit and put them in the red? Did management ever try to lead the way by taking a pay cut themselves to demonstrate loyalty to the business?
Of course when a business is failing the owner looks at all his costs, wrings his hands, and says "If only my labor costs were lower, if only my capital costs were lower, etc...". But at the end of the day, when a business is going down, everyone suffers. I understand it is called creative destruction now.
But look at it this way, if a company is unsuccessful such that the only way to keep it on life support is for everyone to cut their pay, why do I want to keep working there or sacrifice to keep the company on life support? In fact, is not such behavior socialist and counter to the tenants of survival of the fittest? How is a worker subsidy to a failing business any different than a government one to keep it limping along? I do not care if I work for Ford or Toyota, I care about my paycheck!
Workers are factually getting the smallest percent of U.S. profits in recent history and the trend is down. Greedy workers are in no logical way what is wrong with the U.S. economy, in fact there is good reason to suspect the opposite. I believe worker salaries are lower than what the free market would otherwise dictate because the business community and politicians have been systematically suppressing the ability of workers to negotiate in a fair manner (Michigan laws excellent example). And if no one has money to buy chairs, no one will be working to produce chairs. Economic bubbles mean underlying demand was insufficient to support the capital investments, in other word the ill of our country was too much money in the hands of investors and not enough in the hands of consumers!
Look, of course there are corrupt and poorly run Unions. There are also corrupt and poorly run companies. You really need to be involved in your Union if you have one, don't assume anyone is just always looking out for your best interests.
That said, unless you happen to be an expert at contract negotiations, typically you need a Union or something like because they can afford to have actual experts who specialize in it, and you are better off negotiating with other employees on your side, the company is certainly of one mind. We have whole schools and departments dedicated to business, there should be education for people about what a union can and can not do for you and about what makes a union successful or unsuccessful. Really, schools have a business department, why do they not have a labor department? If we educated people in this stuff, I bet our unions would be much, much better!
You forgot to include the New Right and Main Stream Libertarians, Capitalist when it helps them and Socialist when it helps them.
The truth is if you read the post, pretty much everyone is asking if there is a better way. So far I have not seen a single counter suggestion, besides maybe the implied eliminate class action lawsuits OR expand government.
Perhaps simplifying the legal process might empower individuals to take up their own cases more often, not that that would help in the case of class action.
You are right of course. we will never be free of disease. OTOH I do think the different strains favor different hosts, plus species jumps are uncommon for many.
I think with diligent vaccination you can effectively eliminate many diseases in humans, and I am sure the unvaccinated are a better conduit for species jumps.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably more qualified than most scientist. Being used to public speaking puts him ahead of the game if anything. This kind of thing tends to be more broad than deep. In the occasions where it does go into deep and narrow specifics, those are mostly gotchas, they normally do have answers but unless you know that specific one it is hard to come up with an answer without time to think about it.
...Welcome the new King of Kong!
I don't disagree, I think I was kind of saying something similar. However if you pay attention you will notice how often people change their tune about so called free speech when they like or dislike the person in question or what was said. For example very few of the people defending the duck commander actually disagree with his comment, and very many of the same people called loudly for Bashir to be fired.
FYI, this is common to everyone, not just one group. Still some people do rise about it somehow.
Anonymous nobodies can say dumb thing all day long with lesser consequences because they have less to lose. If you are making your money in the public eye, you also suffer from its displeasure. There is no way around it. Also, everyone is a hypocrite when it comes to this stuff, people turn from supposed supporters of free speech, as if that should protect your job, to demanding resignations for saying the wrong thing all the time.
...you have 10 seconds to comply
Capitalism is how money works when society sets up a certain set of legal rules. Say, for example, the government arresting you or fining you because you failed to follow some kind of copy write law, or sold a medical drug the government thinks another company owns. Indeed the idea of property itself requires a certain social norm and agreement. Genghis Khan is how money works when it is left alone.
FYI, if Capitalism worked perfectly, there would never be economic bubbles or monopolies.
Kind of in the way not living near tigers makes you less likely to be eaten by one. Sure an escaped zoo tiger *might* eat you, but is just very unlikely.
No disease is magic, basic behavioural changes can be very effective in reducing their spread. We need to remind people we already know everything needed to stop the spread of HIV.
Here is the direct answer to your question, it has to do with the economic intersts that each policy affects.
Defense and security spending is a type of economic stimulus and makes many people a lot of money.
Global warming is about using and spending less and potentially costs people money.
As a result people evalulate the risks of these two situations differently.
One more thing, parody of the MI complex was already done and done better. It is called Bill the Galactic Hero.
FYI, the reason so many love Peter Jacksons films is he delivers exactly what he is promising you. He recognizes that the works he is retelling are masterpieces and stays true to them.
By comparison, so many SF works get butchered by Hollywood and a lot of it is deliberate. Before going to see Starship Troopers I was very confused that Hollywood had made it into a movie in the first place. I was well aware it expressed ideas and concepts that Hollywood would not be comfortable with. I just didn't understand at the time that movies makers thought they should "improve" or "comment upon" these classics, but would give them the same name to sell tickets. Mind you, I am only a moderate Heinlein fan, while Troops brought up interesting questions, I did not always agree with Heinleins answers, which is fine BTW.
I walked away from the movie understanding is was at least farce. I did not see it as satire and still do not because the director does not really satire the work in question or address the issues brought up, he really just goes off in his own direction. Rather than make his own movie and have his ideas stand on their own two feet, he simply told the audience they were getting one thing (starship troopers) and instead gave the audience another (was it anti-fascist propaganda? An assertion the current military are fascists? the world of the movie bears little resemblance to our own and how exactly would you deal with an enemy you simply wants to kill you? FYI that is what wrong with Troopers also, our real world enemies are nothing like the bugs)
The same was true of I Robot and so many other movies, it is unclear if Hollywood does not understand the books or if they just think (incorrectly) that the stories they want to tell are better. Paradoxically, many great movies really are just retelling of classic stories that Hollywood renamed, perhaps to hide their origin and make it look like their own work? So here is a tip for Hollywood, we the audience DO understand what is going on, you are not fooling anyone. If you want to retell a great story, do that and tell the audience we are getting that. If you want to tell your own story, then do that and make it clear before I pay money for the ticket. Until then we have no choice but to pay very close attention to what those critics you so hate say about a movie, because we have no other way of know what we are putting our money down for otherwise.
Interesting aside, I really liked Fight Club, but at first had no desire to see it. The commercials made it look like another dumb fist fight movie, I only saw it once I found out it was something more.
It is an outrage, and possibly a crime.
Utilities are monopolies and thus government regulated. Because everyone must purchase services from the utility, they have very stringent ethics rules of necessity. And trust me, if they HAD been contributing to liberal causes, politicians, especially conservative ones, would have been beside themselves with outrage.
As for solar power itself, power utilities donâ(TM)t like them because they reduce utility profits, period. There is no real science behind their dislike. As for the specifics of the propaganda against solar power, maybe it was accurate, maybe not I suppose we would have to see it first. But if money is being sent secretly and lied about, on the face of it I am unsure how much I would trust such information.
"Clearly the preparers of this report believe in the parable of the broken window and think it's a great way to dig yourself out of a hole and into prosperity.
I'd be happy to help... only I seem to have misplaced my slingshot..."
Just so you know, this argument is easily debunked, or rather in no way applies to our government domestic spending today. A most basic first problem is the argument assumes 100% waste, literally no public benefit however minor. Wars might be another matter, and frankly based on history are probably closer to what the author was talking about in the first place.
The parable for our current situation is more like, government takes window for school, hospital, or orphanage, person has to buy new one. The basic logical flaw people who look at the argument often make is they are confusing increased GDP with increased human benefit. It is perfectly possible to increase GDP while lowering human benefit, which is what is happening in the example given in the parable, you are just exchanging uncertain consumption for certain consumption.
...then you effectively are proving everyone knows what the term Scout is used for in reference to youth organizations. They could as easily been the Hacker Pioneers, the Hacker Navigators or the Hacker Pathfinders.
I know this will be unpopular, but this is probably one of the less bad infringement cases I have heard of.
Wait, IANAL but. Under Slander and Libel you have to show harm. False advertising is prosmising something you don't deliver on. Opinions that "these are the best waffles in the world" and "my salesman was the nicest and most helpful person ever" have never been an issue because they are opinion. Heck resturants advertise the best waffles in the world all the time, and since it can't be objectively proven...
So again what is the exact crime, breaking Yelp's TOS?
You are wrong, maybe not technically but in theme. Being careless can and in many cases should be a crime. No drunk driver intends to kill anyone.
Zimmerman is certainly NOT guilty of any aggravating circumstances and I can even believe that he is probably a basically good person who intended to do the right thing. The basic problem is his behavior was reckless and in a way that was clearly dangerous to other people.
When a policeman confronts a person he clearly identifies himself for a reason. He is saying, " I am armed, will take lethal action if needed and BTW I am acting under the authority of the community and government. If you have problem with that take it up with the judge, but for now you need to do what I say. " Police get LOTS of training on how to approach people and control a situation. These procedures exist because they really do work and it is dangerous both to the police officer and the community if they are not followed.
Zimmerman simply did not have this training, was not qualified to do what he was trying. As a result he was very much a danger to the community, I am sure that was not his intent, but is was none the less true. Zimmerman was ignorant of this, as BTW are many here apparently, and to an extent had been misled by a great deal of misinformation propagated for various political and personal reasons. Still the same could be said of drunk drivers, they just did not know how dangerous their actions really were, it took public education and laws to enforce behavior to turn the corner on drunk driving.
Which is why I am posting this, I want people to understand that conflict avoidance IS the best policy unless you are trained to handle a situation. Watch and report is fine, but anything further and unless you happened to be a cop, you do not know what you are doing.
Basically that is the problem, the prices do not reflect true delivery costs by government mandate. The USPS is mandated to provide certain types of services at a certain cost no matter what.
Effectively Netflix got low prices because they knew how to get their packages classified as protected mail. Also they really DID work very hard to make their packages as easy to sort and deliver as possible. They spent a lot of time working closely with the USPS to make a package that was easy for them to sort, they even went so far as to hire a bunch of USPS personnel to consult on how to do this.
One more point, CDâ(TM)s are super cheap, the costs are controlled by the publishers, so they can make or break Gamefly and Netflix.
Then you of all people should know the pro defense element of the Republicans would absolutely have come to GWB defense, and in fact did while the Democrats were complaining about the Patriot act in the first place. BTW, they are kind of coming to defend the program under Obama also, just not very strongly, and the libertarian wing is much more emboldened
The leopards have not changed their spots. Take the Tea Party for example, it is not that they were somehow pro deficit and tax during the Bush years, it is that they did not see their way clear to grabbing their muskets, tri-corner hats and protesting in public until Obama. This is kind of the same thing. I will agree that Left wingers are not as noisy as they would have been with Bush, but there is no doubt they have been complaining about the NSA also. OTOH the Republicans are doing the same thing in reverse. It is more of a volume control thing on both sides.
What is key is no one, right now, is willing to invest in supporting Obama on NSA spying. His own party dislikes it and the natural allies of defense, defense minded Republicans, wonâ(TM)t help. Thus this is a good chance to get something done on the issue.
FYI, in communist countries Right wing is the communist and pro-government party, you are comparing apples and oranges. Actually when you do a survey of people self-proclaimed leanings and opinions, right wing tends to mean accepts authority and left wing tends to mean helping people as individuals.
I am pretty sure I hear plenty of complaints about the NSA out of so called left wing media, the only different is I hear it out of right wing media also now.
Where did you get the idea the mass media is all left wing, was it because you were told so by Fox, Limbaugh, Glen Beck, the Wall Street Journal.... ...really how many TV, news papers and radio stations does right wing need to be mass media too?
Actually no, GWB would only have been attacked by the Left for the most part, the Right mostly would have defended GWB for doing what was needed to protect our country. The response from the pro defense politicians is decidedly mute, they are simply choosing not to defend he President, at least not very much.
These intrusions by the NSA are a lot like things that have been going on all along (note I did not say it was good). Basically the opportunity for progress on this issue is precisely because Obama is the President, the Left is naturally suspicious of police and spying, while the Right is simply suspicious of Obama. (FYI, my favorite story about this is back when GWB was in power the Left would complain, what if someone you didnâ(TM)t like had this kind of power, and all too often the Right would reply, but I trust the people on power right nowâ¦)
OK, so which couintry exactly would YOU trust to host your data and no spy on it.
FFS, all goverments should have official email only on goverment controled system. That is not 100% safe, but why make it easier than you have to?
OK, so revenue problems were industry wide, and they way the company restructured was to merge. So on the face of it, looks like there was simply over growth in the companies followed by basically downsizing. No one likes it but it happens union or not.
So who fared better from your observations, Union members or non-Union members? Also did salaries go back up after the restructure? How is the ratio of company profits to salary today vs. in the past?
Well, obviously I don't know the details of this case but let me throw out a few things.
First, maybe she really was in a bad Union, bad Unions, bad workers and bad management can all make a business go out of business. Film at 11. In fact I want to start educating workers about this exactly this, what makes a good union vs. a bad one, what they can legitimately expect a union to do for them vs. what they should not expect.
But how certain are you that it was the Union, and only the Union, that caused all the problems? Was this company really making just as much profit as every other company in the industry did, and it was only the salaries of Unions members that ate up that profit and put them in the red? Did management ever try to lead the way by taking a pay cut themselves to demonstrate loyalty to the business?
Of course when a business is failing the owner looks at all his costs, wrings his hands, and says "If only my labor costs were lower, if only my capital costs were lower, etc...". But at the end of the day, when a business is going down, everyone suffers. I understand it is called creative destruction now.
But look at it this way, if a company is unsuccessful such that the only way to keep it on life support is for everyone to cut their pay, why do I want to keep working there or sacrifice to keep the company on life support? In fact, is not such behavior socialist and counter to the tenants of survival of the fittest? How is a worker subsidy to a failing business any different than a government one to keep it limping along? I do not care if I work for Ford or Toyota, I care about my paycheck!
Workers are factually getting the smallest percent of U.S. profits in recent history and the trend is down. Greedy workers are in no logical way what is wrong with the U.S. economy, in fact there is good reason to suspect the opposite. I believe worker salaries are lower than what the free market would otherwise dictate because the business community and politicians have been systematically suppressing the ability of workers to negotiate in a fair manner (Michigan laws excellent example). And if no one has money to buy chairs, no one will be working to produce chairs. Economic bubbles mean underlying demand was insufficient to support the capital investments, in other word the ill of our country was too much money in the hands of investors and not enough in the hands of consumers!
Look, of course there are corrupt and poorly run Unions. There are also corrupt and poorly run companies. You really need to be involved in your Union if you have one, don't assume anyone is just always looking out for your best interests.
That said, unless you happen to be an expert at contract negotiations, typically you need a Union or something like because they can afford to have actual experts who specialize in it, and you are better off negotiating with other employees on your side, the company is certainly of one mind. We have whole schools and departments dedicated to business, there should be education for people about what a union can and can not do for you and about what makes a union successful or unsuccessful. Really, schools have a business department, why do they not have a labor department? If we educated people in this stuff, I bet our unions would be much, much better!
You forgot to include the New Right and Main Stream Libertarians, Capitalist when it helps them and Socialist when it helps them.
The truth is if you read the post, pretty much everyone is asking if there is a better way. So far I have not seen a single counter suggestion, besides maybe the implied eliminate class action lawsuits OR expand government.
Perhaps simplifying the legal process might empower individuals to take up their own cases more often, not that that would help in the case of class action.
You are right of course. we will never be free of disease. OTOH I do think the different strains favor different hosts, plus species jumps are uncommon for many.
I think with diligent vaccination you can effectively eliminate many diseases in humans, and I am sure the unvaccinated are a better conduit for species jumps.