Once you have negotiations between parties, the negotiations tend to be out in the open because the public have a clear idea of what a party stands for.
If you keep these discussions behind closed doors, then you end up being overly influenced by lobby groups.
Insurance companies already do this. I pay a low premium on my car insurance because I live in a small country town. When we lived in the city, we paid a higher premium. This was many years ago, and I guess it's been standards for many years prior.
To be honest, I'm surprised that insurance companies don't already offer this, i.e. we track you speed, and if you stay below the limit 99.9% of the time, then you get a nice reduction in your premiums.
(note: a quick google search shows that some already do, just not where I live).
I don't come from a country that uses the term 'liberal'. However, I *think* I'm a liberal, and OP is easy to rebuff.
1. Freedom of speech must be balanced against those that seek to cause harm, i.e. by inciting violence. The state should press charges if you for yelling 'fire' in a crowded movie theatre. This means, don't be surprised if I object to your poorly worded 'critical expression' if I feel as if it will incite violence.
2. I'm not *for* guns, or else I'd be *for* guns for everyone, especially those that cannot afford them. I don't see anyone argue *for* subsidised guns for everyone.
3. I'm not afraid of self-empowerment. It just shouldn't come at the cost of not restricting the freedoms of others. The bucket filling program that you write about is probably less a liberal position, but more a tool to manage a classroom. Anything to help kids think about their actions is a good thing.
4. I don't prefer either. The end of the scale, aggression, is generally a form of coercion. If you need to be aggressive towards someone, you're probably removing their ability to make their own decisions.
I finish off my post with some sweeping generalisations, and then a emotive, rousing call to arms. Just kidding.
Note that being 'out-numbered' isn't an excuse to be an asshole.
There is a scientific alternative to Darwinism. It's called Lamarckism. And it's something that *should* be taught alongside Darwinism in biology classrooms.
Even a monopoly has to price competitively. If it makes too much profit, then it will make it easy for new entrants to the market to make a profit under-cutting them. In other words, you can't protect a monopoly with massive profit margins on your products.
Those accords haven't done jack shit in the past, they are largely a symbolic gesture and none of the nations who did agree to the last ones managed to live up to what they promised.
The 37 nations that ratified Kyoto met their targets, with a collective 16% decrease in carbon emissions
Although, some might say that the greatest outcome of Kyoto were the lessons to policy makers that will be used in later negotiations.
The roots of this need to be planted in high schools, where the emphasis needs to be on kids learning how to learn. Life will be full of challenges, and being able to learn a wide variety of skills in different ways will become the critical skill.
Instead of asking 'will maths/science/English be useful for my everyday existence', they should be asking 'what methods of learning should I be applying to the diverse array of topics, and what methods work best in which situations for myself'.
Also, why do we still put 'gaming' in some special category? If I like watching movies, I don't call it 'moving', or if I listen to music, I don't call it 'musing'.
I know we like repeatable experiments as evidence, but much of the evidence in Origin of Species wasn't done experimentally. He took a number of observations, wrapped an effective explanation around it, and then looked for more evidence, altered his explanation, rinse, repeat etc. This happens to be good science, and after a lifetime of work, put forward a very compelling model, with few gaps.
Some studies can't be reproduced. That doesn't mean it's bad science.
Generally, job security these days comes from having flexible enough experience and training to be able to find *another* job easily.
This means that if people want to study, then the company should be prepared to meet their employees halfway, or they will only seek to de-motivate the parts of their workforce that's are usually self-motivated.
So while assisting with training doesn't help with the bottom line directly, having a de-motivated workforce will ultimately do more damage to your business.
If they're as lonely as we are, and regardless of whether they used radio like we have, wouldn't any sufficiently advanced civilisation be transmitting radiowaves in all directions, with the purpose of getting a response from someone else? So, if they want to get in contact with us, radio seems like a good place to start, as least from a physics perspective?
We send out these kinds of signals now, but on a small scale. We should be sending these in all directions, and all the time, and the messages we should be sending are 'is there a better way to communicate with you guys? if there is, can you send us back some instructions on building a faster than light communication device?'
Probably because building a levee in preparation for a once in a 1000 year storm is prohibitively expensive.
Or, on other words, if your a politician and build a levee for a once in 50 year storm, the chances are still good that you wont be held responsible for it while you are in office.
A business must balance the interests of all stakeholders in order to be sustainable. If you cant balance the interests of your workers with the interests of other stakeholders then your business is doomed to fail.
In any case, activism in the unions usually is a sign of problems elsewhere in the industry. The real problem is a market shift away from these products, and management not being able to create new products to remain viable.
All right maggot, fallout! Colonel Homestarrunner is recruiting the most elite team of crack commandos to invade Strongbadia. Do you has what it takes to join the Homestarmy? Will you bring a sack lunch and some orange slices for me and serve your country? WILL YOU STUPID!?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. This is an important point.
Once you have negotiations between parties, the negotiations tend to be out in the open because the public have a clear idea of what a party stands for.
If you keep these discussions behind closed doors, then you end up being overly influenced by lobby groups.
Insurance companies already do this. I pay a low premium on my car insurance because I live in a small country town. When we lived in the city, we paid a higher premium. This was many years ago, and I guess it's been standards for many years prior.
To be honest, I'm surprised that insurance companies don't already offer this, i.e. we track you speed, and if you stay below the limit 99.9% of the time, then you get a nice reduction in your premiums.
(note: a quick google search shows that some already do, just not where I live).
I don't come from a country that uses the term 'liberal'. However, I *think* I'm a liberal, and OP is easy to rebuff.
1. Freedom of speech must be balanced against those that seek to cause harm, i.e. by inciting violence. The state should press charges if you for yelling 'fire' in a crowded movie theatre. This means, don't be surprised if I object to your poorly worded 'critical expression' if I feel as if it will incite violence.
2. I'm not *for* guns, or else I'd be *for* guns for everyone, especially those that cannot afford them. I don't see anyone argue *for* subsidised guns for everyone.
3. I'm not afraid of self-empowerment. It just shouldn't come at the cost of not restricting the freedoms of others. The bucket filling program that you write about is probably less a liberal position, but more a tool to manage a classroom. Anything to help kids think about their actions is a good thing.
4. I don't prefer either. The end of the scale, aggression, is generally a form of coercion. If you need to be aggressive towards someone, you're probably removing their ability to make their own decisions.
I finish off my post with some sweeping generalisations, and then a emotive, rousing call to arms. Just kidding.
Note that being 'out-numbered' isn't an excuse to be an asshole.
He says 'Microsoft made a mistake', not 'the Board didn't lead the company in the right direction'.
Why do I get the feeling that he won't take any personal responsibility for the running of Microsoft?
Oh! I see what you did there!
There is a scientific alternative to Darwinism. It's called Lamarckism. And it's something that *should* be taught alongside Darwinism in biology classrooms.
Even a monopoly has to price competitively. If it makes too much profit, then it will make it easy for new entrants to the market to make a profit under-cutting them. In other words, you can't protect a monopoly with massive profit margins on your products.
no?
If they had said "0.42 dollars", or even just "$0.42", then this would equal 42 cents.
Those accords haven't done jack shit in the past, they are largely a symbolic gesture and none of the nations who did agree to the last ones managed to live up to what they promised.
The 37 nations that ratified Kyoto met their targets, with a collective 16% decrease in carbon emissions
Although, some might say that the greatest outcome of Kyoto were the lessons to policy makers that will be used in later negotiations.
Not all the factors of production can become more and more ubiquitous.
The roots of this need to be planted in high schools, where the emphasis needs to be on kids learning how to learn. Life will be full of challenges, and being able to learn a wide variety of skills in different ways will become the critical skill.
Instead of asking 'will maths/science/English be useful for my everyday existence', they should be asking 'what methods of learning should I be applying to the diverse array of topics, and what methods work best in which situations for myself'.
++
Also, why do we still put 'gaming' in some special category? If I like watching movies, I don't call it 'moving', or if I listen to music, I don't call it 'musing'.
I know we like repeatable experiments as evidence, but much of the evidence in Origin of Species wasn't done experimentally. He took a number of observations, wrapped an effective explanation around it, and then looked for more evidence, altered his explanation, rinse, repeat etc. This happens to be good science, and after a lifetime of work, put forward a very compelling model, with few gaps.
Some studies can't be reproduced. That doesn't mean it's bad science.
Pretty much the rest of the world went through the same thing. It can be done.
Generally, job security these days comes from having flexible enough experience and training to be able to find *another* job easily.
This means that if people want to study, then the company should be prepared to meet their employees halfway, or they will only seek to de-motivate the parts of their workforce that's are usually self-motivated.
So while assisting with training doesn't help with the bottom line directly, having a de-motivated workforce will ultimately do more damage to your business.
If they're as lonely as we are, and regardless of whether they used radio like we have, wouldn't any sufficiently advanced civilisation be transmitting radiowaves in all directions, with the purpose of getting a response from someone else? So, if they want to get in contact with us, radio seems like a good place to start, as least from a physics perspective?
We send out these kinds of signals now, but on a small scale. We should be sending these in all directions, and all the time, and the messages we should be sending are 'is there a better way to communicate with you guys? if there is, can you send us back some instructions on building a faster than light communication device?'
Probably because building a levee in preparation for a once in a 1000 year storm is prohibitively expensive.
Or, on other words, if your a politician and build a levee for a once in 50 year storm, the chances are still good that you wont be held responsible for it while you are in office.
weather != climate
Or the opposite. I used to pirate, but now I use steam.
Just think about it deeply, then forget itâ¦then an idea will jump up in your face.
A business must balance the interests of all stakeholders in order to be sustainable. If you cant balance the interests of your workers with the interests of other stakeholders then your business is doomed to fail.
In any case, activism in the unions usually is a sign of problems elsewhere in the industry. The real problem is a market shift away from these products, and management not being able to create new products to remain viable.
What you're voting for is representation of your views.
All right maggot, fallout! Colonel Homestarrunner is recruiting the most elite team of crack commandos to invade Strongbadia. Do you has what it takes to join the Homestarmy? Will you bring a sack lunch and some orange slices for me and serve your country? WILL YOU STUPID!?
Not to mention how pissed HRH will be she he finds out.