Because these people need to get food and shelter somehow and unless you own shares in the company chances are you're not going to get anything out of it. In the US productivity has been through the roof for quite a while now and the actual workers get less and less every year. Mostly because of class warfare and corporations that get away with stealing from their employees. There isn't a recognized right to food, clothing, medical care and housing in the US, which means that anytime our jobs get shipped over seas or assigned to robots, that's additional pressure depressing the living wages for everybody else.
You miss the point to an extent. It's not when the workplace is that bad typically that people kill themselves, it's when their perception is that every workplace is like that or that they can't get a job at one that isn't that things get extremely bleak. It's hard to be seriously depressed by a jobsite if you know that you can be out of their in the near future for something better. Whereas if you believe that you can't get something better it's very easy to fall into the trap of depression and hopelessness.
I don't really know how to respond. You accept that the Chinese government doesn't enforce labor laws that keep their own people from making a living wage, but you don't believe that there's a right to a fair share in the profits. That's a really bizarre position to take.
The workers is where all the profits come from in the first place and most of these companies wouldn't be making money at all were it not for withholding the portion needed by the workers to have a reasonable lifestyle. It's uniquely bourgeoisie to suggest that what the workers get is by some sort of benevolence on the part of the corporation rather than the other way around. Were there no workers to work in these factories, there would be no return on investment and as such no profits. I think that's a pretty strong basis for establishing a right to some of the profits. Corporations and individuals who ignore that principle tend to go out of business quickly. Or at least they would if not for corporate welfare and government interference in organizing.
Point being? There are places like Gaza where not killing yourself is an even worse business plan. Companies move their operations to China mainly to exploit the cheap labor. The labor being cheap mostly because the Chinese government doesn't enforce labor laws and doesn't give the people their fair share of the profits. Preferring instead to invest it in debt instruments in other countries to keep their wages artificially low.
No, what it means is that you need to run as far away from them as you can possibly get. The only thing that Wall Street does more efficiently is fleece individual investors. Now they've gotten so efficient that they've managed to fleece tax payers into thinking that it's a better deal to pay more to fix the mortgage crisis than it would cost to just buy up every troubled mortgage in the country.
I assume you've never heard of "dividends." They're what used to drive investments prior to computers. Back in the day people would rarely buy and sell on a time period of less than a couple years, because it was somewhat difficult to get in and out efficiently. Hell, I remember even in the 80s, you'd typically be restricted to only checking prices once a day. Well, unless you were a broker or were glued to the TV.
What that does is decrease the cut that the matchmakers get for brokering the deal. However it doesn't harm the market, there are still stocks, most notably Berkshire Hathaway, which are barely liquid and they do just fine. You just Don't expect to trade it immediately. I know it's terrible to possibly have to wait an hour or two, but it's worth it if it cuts these jack ass jackal cheats out of the picture.
But ZOMG teh soshulists are going to take away our stuffs. Quick thwart them before we have to actually be competent and put in effort to fleece the masses. Pretty much sums that up pretty well.
That may be the rationale, but it doesn't. The assumption people make is that short term traders are trading upon the actual realism of the price, when they're doing no such thing. Typically people that trade in intervals of less than 6 months are doing so called "technical analysis" which is ironic since there's no technical knowledge required nor is there any analysis required. Basically they look at a graph and imagine what it means. And since there's a lot of people doing so it becomes a sort of truth. Sort of like how if everybody agrees that a can of sardines is worth $100 suddenly that's what it costs.
The problem though is that these huge short term trades come with costs. One of them is that you get panics. Like in '80s when they had to start instituting emergency breaks. You do get something out of it, the matchmakers make a bit less money, but you get a lot of irrationality and a lot less competent investing as a result.
Bullshit. The free market is what led us to the brink of economic collapse. Short term trading is probably the largest factor in the rather routine occurrence of market failures. Because the average period for holding a stock is around 6 months, there's no incentive for corporations to look any further into the future. Even when the risk is terribly obvious they don't do anything to avert it. There's been a steady drumbeat in recent decades for fewer dividends and more growth. The problem is that dividends are paid to investors as a way of keeping them around, and as it turns out it's a lot harder to have steady growth and a regular dividend than it is to grow for periods.
And actually you've got it backwards, if you've got a massive portfolio then you should be required to wait longer than smaller investors. Small investors cause far fewer problems in this respect that institutional ones do. They can do crazy things like sell a portion of their holdings triggering a panic, then buy them back knowing what the price will be in a few moments time. The suggestion you're making that they don't harm everybody else is ultimately bullshit.
It's not worse, there's no good reason why IE needs to be 64bit native. Nothing that IE does really needs the extensions and you're paying the 64bit toll without really getting anything out of it.
That's why I've set it to only download the updates, not install them. If MS is doing installing anyways that's not something that can reasonably be considered agreed to.
That's not shocking, the technology to do video calls has been around for a really long time and has yet to actually take off. Once the novelty factor wears off, I'm predicting this flops again. People just don't typically want to be face to face over the phone. Sure there's exceptions like in the military when you're stuck on deployment half way around the world, but for most people if they wanted to be face to face they'd just come over. On top of that, as long as this requires equipment that most people don't have you're going to have a tiny group of people you can use it with.
Five days is plenty of time to at least respond. The problem is that MS will leave serious vulnerabilities unlatched for extended periods. They could've at least released a bulletin.
That's almost certainly the case. Australia is the world's biggest supporter of the US, or possibly second behind Germany. Australia as committed at least some troops to every military action that the US has been engaged in for nearly a hundred years. But then again, the British influence can't be healthy. As bad as things are in the US, they're a lot worse in this respect over there. More cameras in total than we have and a seemingly unquenchable thirst for more control by the government.
Doesn't surprise me, I've noticed that my eyes seem to need to go out for a stretch from time to time to keep their focus. I've still got better than 20/20 vision, and I can tell when I've been slacking off in that respect.
You shouldn't be using a mouse for Photoshop work. It's not really sensitive enough for things of any sophistication. That's what tablets are for, much more natural motion and a better precision of movement.
I know of at least one case locally where a woman was put into a coma by exposure to chemical fragrance. The idiot that did it to her had been warned more than a few times not to do it. One day he comes in wreaking of the stuff like he bathed in it. A few minutes later she was in a coma.
She did eventually come out of it, but the brain damage was significant. A person would have to be a monster to not think that's fucked up. Though admittedly most people with sensitivities aren't that sensitive. But still.
Slashdot Mirror
Because these people need to get food and shelter somehow and unless you own shares in the company chances are you're not going to get anything out of it. In the US productivity has been through the roof for quite a while now and the actual workers get less and less every year. Mostly because of class warfare and corporations that get away with stealing from their employees. There isn't a recognized right to food, clothing, medical care and housing in the US, which means that anytime our jobs get shipped over seas or assigned to robots, that's additional pressure depressing the living wages for everybody else.
You miss the point to an extent. It's not when the workplace is that bad typically that people kill themselves, it's when their perception is that every workplace is like that or that they can't get a job at one that isn't that things get extremely bleak. It's hard to be seriously depressed by a jobsite if you know that you can be out of their in the near future for something better. Whereas if you believe that you can't get something better it's very easy to fall into the trap of depression and hopelessness.
I don't really know how to respond. You accept that the Chinese government doesn't enforce labor laws that keep their own people from making a living wage, but you don't believe that there's a right to a fair share in the profits. That's a really bizarre position to take.
The workers is where all the profits come from in the first place and most of these companies wouldn't be making money at all were it not for withholding the portion needed by the workers to have a reasonable lifestyle. It's uniquely bourgeoisie to suggest that what the workers get is by some sort of benevolence on the part of the corporation rather than the other way around. Were there no workers to work in these factories, there would be no return on investment and as such no profits. I think that's a pretty strong basis for establishing a right to some of the profits. Corporations and individuals who ignore that principle tend to go out of business quickly. Or at least they would if not for corporate welfare and government interference in organizing.
Point being? There are places like Gaza where not killing yourself is an even worse business plan. Companies move their operations to China mainly to exploit the cheap labor. The labor being cheap mostly because the Chinese government doesn't enforce labor laws and doesn't give the people their fair share of the profits. Preferring instead to invest it in debt instruments in other countries to keep their wages artificially low.
No, what it means is that you need to run as far away from them as you can possibly get. The only thing that Wall Street does more efficiently is fleece individual investors. Now they've gotten so efficient that they've managed to fleece tax payers into thinking that it's a better deal to pay more to fix the mortgage crisis than it would cost to just buy up every troubled mortgage in the country.
I assume you've never heard of "dividends." They're what used to drive investments prior to computers. Back in the day people would rarely buy and sell on a time period of less than a couple years, because it was somewhat difficult to get in and out efficiently. Hell, I remember even in the 80s, you'd typically be restricted to only checking prices once a day. Well, unless you were a broker or were glued to the TV.
What that does is decrease the cut that the matchmakers get for brokering the deal. However it doesn't harm the market, there are still stocks, most notably Berkshire Hathaway, which are barely liquid and they do just fine. You just Don't expect to trade it immediately. I know it's terrible to possibly have to wait an hour or two, but it's worth it if it cuts these jack ass jackal cheats out of the picture.
But ZOMG teh soshulists are going to take away our stuffs. Quick thwart them before we have to actually be competent and put in effort to fleece the masses. Pretty much sums that up pretty well.
That may be the rationale, but it doesn't. The assumption people make is that short term traders are trading upon the actual realism of the price, when they're doing no such thing. Typically people that trade in intervals of less than 6 months are doing so called "technical analysis" which is ironic since there's no technical knowledge required nor is there any analysis required. Basically they look at a graph and imagine what it means. And since there's a lot of people doing so it becomes a sort of truth. Sort of like how if everybody agrees that a can of sardines is worth $100 suddenly that's what it costs.
The problem though is that these huge short term trades come with costs. One of them is that you get panics. Like in '80s when they had to start instituting emergency breaks. You do get something out of it, the matchmakers make a bit less money, but you get a lot of irrationality and a lot less competent investing as a result.
Bullshit. The free market is what led us to the brink of economic collapse. Short term trading is probably the largest factor in the rather routine occurrence of market failures. Because the average period for holding a stock is around 6 months, there's no incentive for corporations to look any further into the future. Even when the risk is terribly obvious they don't do anything to avert it. There's been a steady drumbeat in recent decades for fewer dividends and more growth. The problem is that dividends are paid to investors as a way of keeping them around, and as it turns out it's a lot harder to have steady growth and a regular dividend than it is to grow for periods.
And actually you've got it backwards, if you've got a massive portfolio then you should be required to wait longer than smaller investors. Small investors cause far fewer problems in this respect that institutional ones do. They can do crazy things like sell a portion of their holdings triggering a panic, then buy them back knowing what the price will be in a few moments time. The suggestion you're making that they don't harm everybody else is ultimately bullshit.
It's not worse, there's no good reason why IE needs to be 64bit native. Nothing that IE does really needs the extensions and you're paying the 64bit toll without really getting anything out of it.
That's why I've set it to only download the updates, not install them. If MS is doing installing anyways that's not something that can reasonably be considered agreed to.
That's not shocking, the technology to do video calls has been around for a really long time and has yet to actually take off. Once the novelty factor wears off, I'm predicting this flops again. People just don't typically want to be face to face over the phone. Sure there's exceptions like in the military when you're stuck on deployment half way around the world, but for most people if they wanted to be face to face they'd just come over. On top of that, as long as this requires equipment that most people don't have you're going to have a tiny group of people you can use it with.
I like to use a 9 iron. Gripped properly you can send a poor kids lunchbox a good half block away. And turn that apple into a mere cloud of an edible.
And the problem is? If it's a well designed program then it really shouldn't make much difference which model you're using.
Physical media is the key as far as I'm concerned. I'm not interested if I'm at the mercy of Sony to move it to another unit.
No, he just used IBM mainframes.
Um, the tower is the CPU, though in the now archaic sense. It's really only been acceptable for a decade or so to call the processor a CPU.
Five days is plenty of time to at least respond. The problem is that MS will leave serious vulnerabilities unlatched for extended periods. They could've at least released a bulletin.
Ah, the security blanket approach. If they can't see me I'm not vulnerable.
They already do, it's called the IE 8 install program.
That's almost certainly the case. Australia is the world's biggest supporter of the US, or possibly second behind Germany. Australia as committed at least some troops to every military action that the US has been engaged in for nearly a hundred years. But then again, the British influence can't be healthy. As bad as things are in the US, they're a lot worse in this respect over there. More cameras in total than we have and a seemingly unquenchable thirst for more control by the government.
Doesn't surprise me, I've noticed that my eyes seem to need to go out for a stretch from time to time to keep their focus. I've still got better than 20/20 vision, and I can tell when I've been slacking off in that respect.
You shouldn't be using a mouse for Photoshop work. It's not really sensitive enough for things of any sophistication. That's what tablets are for, much more natural motion and a better precision of movement.
I'd give you an answer, but it'll come in the opposite direction, seeing as it's Australia.
I know of at least one case locally where a woman was put into a coma by exposure to chemical fragrance. The idiot that did it to her had been warned more than a few times not to do it. One day he comes in wreaking of the stuff like he bathed in it. A few minutes later she was in a coma.
She did eventually come out of it, but the brain damage was significant. A person would have to be a monster to not think that's fucked up. Though admittedly most people with sensitivities aren't that sensitive. But still.