I honestly don't think MS would stoop that low. But discovering that spammers/hackers hijacked the Bing rankings using bogus sites and links, and MS choosing to conveniently ignore the problem *is* something MS would typically do. They get most their cake without the guilt. Why do active sabotage when you can use passive sabotage that gets the same results with much less legal risk?
Keep in mind that the maxima for the 1%'s income may be different than the maxima for the rest. And sometimes having a safety net is better than more average cash in pocket.
There is going to be fuzzy areas between 100% guilty and 100% innocent quite often. I'm looking for a realistic way to deal with such that won't cost society an arm and a leg.
The cost of upholding "presumed innocent until proven guilty" is always worth it, since the alternative is the collapse of the rule of law.
Unless we see more concrete numbers, it's hard to say how the average person would vote on such. And "collapse of the rule of law" is an exaggeration: work-place shenanigans have been going on since the dawn of civilization, yet society gradually progressed anyhow. Humans are social animals, not Vulcans. I'm just the messenger.
I gave you a fairly clear-cut formula for "training" me, and believe it to be a reasonable formula. What else do you want? If you want to persuade people, you have to do some leg work. Otherwise, over-simplistic slogans won't change squat.
The very act of choosing which claims to check and which claims to ignore is the best way for "fact checking sites" to hide their bias.
If even if true, for the sake of argument, the sheer volume of his lies is staggering by itself. If he manages to sneak some truth in between, that's nice, but it's still a lie sandwich with plenty of bologna. The Truth Pickle is rather lonely.
If all the respectable people won't get the job done, then the public will eventually choose un-respectable people to do it.
So you admit he's a liar, but are tolerating it for the alleged "great acts" he's doing?
He's actually doing his main goals incorrectly, and they are even backfiring. The "caravan" wouldn't exist or be smaller without him because a large portion of it is protesters protecting refugees. Without protectors, there would be fewer. An his economics policy is reverse Keynesian: we'll have nothing in the tank for a stimulus in the next recession. GOP are the new hippies: Sha la la, live for today...
even back then it was understood to create a hostile workplace
My memory is different: "hostile work environment" that didn't involve favoritism or threats didn't become commonplace until a bit after.
Either way, I would agree to some degree of punishment for such as long as it's enforced consistently between parties so that it's not used as a political weapon.
The main fact-checking sites (FCS) give T the worst scores ever of any major politician. If these sites are significantly flawed, then take say 15 evaluations from each and carefully explain how they are clearly wrong. (Two is not a sufficient sample size.) I welcome your results...
While I've disagreed with some of their scoring logic, for the most part FCS appear to be reasonably accurate, based on spot-checking scrutiny I've done.
T, on the other hand, has failed my spot-checking test bigly. T-or-FCS: one or the other is really out of whack. Enlighten me with your careful attention to details in the "fifteen" test. (Actually, both can be out-of-whack, but that still means T is a significant liar. Two wrongs don't make a right.)
like a lot of other technical standards: Once good-enough is established [it's hard to replace with better ones.] That's why we're still using MP3 and JPEG.
nah, just mandatory sensitivity training for all employees as a group punishment. eventually the people causing the problem will get driven out by people sick of having to take the training over and over.
That indeed may work: the training is slow, unpleasant, and redundant; just like jury duty. They should send the guilty to jury duty as punishment, and kill two birds with one stone. (Oops, the PC way is "save two birds with...").
That's pretty much what I'm proposing: 'It may be just easier to tax revenues instead of "profits"'
I guess I didn't make it clear that I was more or less agreeing with the 2% tax proposal. At least the general idea. A common approach is to tax profits instead of revenue. But, profits are easier to play cross-border shell-games with than in-country revenue.
For example, a corporation may manufacture 50% of a product in Country X and finish the rest in Country Y. On their tax return, they will need to gave that 50% gizmo a cost in order to calculate profits.
They can exaggerate or reduce the estimated cost of the half-gizmo as needed to change the profit computations in Country Y. There may be no way to verify the cost given for the half-gizmo because it's not sold on the market place, and Country Y's tax inspectors may not be able to easily visit Country X to audit their operations.
As a semi-side note, the Trump family allegedly did similar tricks to dodge taxes. Trump Sr's and Trump Jr's corporations would sell and buy buildings, services, and ownership shares back and forth at inflated or deflated prices depending on that year's tax stance to hide losses from investors and/or hide profits from IRS. For example, an oven for an apartment rental unit might be $600 on the market, but sold to a cross-family rental unit for $650. (They only have to quote any catalog price for IRS, not the lowest.) In aggregate, the Trumps' pocket the $50.
I'd be happy to take a position at Google. And I won't spend...time on SJW virtue signaling
Come on, they paid somebody $90m to receive a bj. Call me a SJW if you want, but that's just plain stupidity on Google's part in my book. It encourages more BS.
They tried that theory in Kansas a few years ago with terrible results: it blew the budget to heck. True, KS could go without roads, cops, and schools to balance the shrinking budget; but the people I know actually like civilization. If YOUR group wants to go back to the tax-free cave days, that's find by me; just don't do it where I live.
One problem is that the USA no longer has many capital-intensive industries. Investments often don't return enough to justify them in the owners' minds, so the owners find ways to pocket the money themselves instead.
Slashdot Mirror
By breaking shit and seeing what mom and dad say about it?
Most people think short term and dump their problems onto others, sometimes turning to crime, when down and out.
Not necessarily. He/she could be an efficient worker who does in 3 hours what most do in 8. I've met some like that.
Normally such a person would go to the private sector instead, but maybe they valued "play time" over money.
I honestly don't think MS would stoop that low. But discovering that spammers/hackers hijacked the Bing rankings using bogus sites and links, and MS choosing to conveniently ignore the problem *is* something MS would typically do. They get most their cake without the guilt. Why do active sabotage when you can use passive sabotage that gets the same results with much less legal risk?
Keep in mind that the maxima for the 1%'s income may be different than the maxima for the rest. And sometimes having a safety net is better than more average cash in pocket.
There is going to be fuzzy areas between 100% guilty and 100% innocent quite often. I'm looking for a realistic way to deal with such that won't cost society an arm and a leg.
Unless we see more concrete numbers, it's hard to say how the average person would vote on such. And "collapse of the rule of law" is an exaggeration: work-place shenanigans have been going on since the dawn of civilization, yet society gradually progressed anyhow. Humans are social animals, not Vulcans. I'm just the messenger.
Or "fun" by some people's standards. Some like to be involved in drama.
I gave you a fairly clear-cut formula for "training" me, and believe it to be a reasonable formula. What else do you want? If you want to persuade people, you have to do some leg work. Otherwise, over-simplistic slogans won't change squat.
If even if true, for the sake of argument, the sheer volume of his lies is staggering by itself. If he manages to sneak some truth in between, that's nice, but it's still a lie sandwich with plenty of bologna. The Truth Pickle is rather lonely.
So you admit he's a liar, but are tolerating it for the alleged "great acts" he's doing?
He's actually doing his main goals incorrectly, and they are even backfiring. The "caravan" wouldn't exist or be smaller without him because a large portion of it is protesters protecting refugees. Without protectors, there would be fewer. An his economics policy is reverse Keynesian: we'll have nothing in the tank for a stimulus in the next recession. GOP are the new hippies: Sha la la, live for today...
It's their fault for being delicious.
The proponents used the Laffer argument that cuts would pay for themselves.
Please test that theory on another country first. I don't want to be a guinea pig for Fox Labs.
My memory is different: "hostile work environment" that didn't involve favoritism or threats didn't become commonplace until a bit after.
Either way, I would agree to some degree of punishment for such as long as it's enforced consistently between parties so that it's not used as a political weapon.
The main fact-checking sites (FCS) give T the worst scores ever of any major politician. If these sites are significantly flawed, then take say 15 evaluations from each and carefully explain how they are clearly wrong. (Two is not a sufficient sample size.) I welcome your results...
While I've disagreed with some of their scoring logic, for the most part FCS appear to be reasonably accurate, based on spot-checking scrutiny I've done.
T, on the other hand, has failed my spot-checking test bigly. T-or-FCS: one or the other is really out of whack. Enlighten me with your careful attention to details in the "fifteen" test. (Actually, both can be out-of-whack, but that still means T is a significant liar. Two wrongs don't make a right.)
How much loss in milliwatts-per-cat-video?
There was no evidence of job favoritism or threats; merely two adults mutually playing around.
That indeed may work: the training is slow, unpleasant, and redundant; just like jury duty. They should send the guilty to jury duty as punishment, and kill two birds with one stone. (Oops, the PC way is "save two birds with...").
That's pretty much what I'm proposing: 'It may be just easier to tax revenues instead of "profits"'
I guess I didn't make it clear that I was more or less agreeing with the 2% tax proposal. At least the general idea. A common approach is to tax profits instead of revenue. But, profits are easier to play cross-border shell-games with than in-country revenue.
For example, a corporation may manufacture 50% of a product in Country X and finish the rest in Country Y. On their tax return, they will need to gave that 50% gizmo a cost in order to calculate profits.
They can exaggerate or reduce the estimated cost of the half-gizmo as needed to change the profit computations in Country Y. There may be no way to verify the cost given for the half-gizmo because it's not sold on the market place, and Country Y's tax inspectors may not be able to easily visit Country X to audit their operations.
As a semi-side note, the Trump family allegedly did similar tricks to dodge taxes. Trump Sr's and Trump Jr's corporations would sell and buy buildings, services, and ownership shares back and forth at inflated or deflated prices depending on that year's tax stance to hide losses from investors and/or hide profits from IRS. For example, an oven for an apartment rental unit might be $600 on the market, but sold to a cross-family rental unit for $650. (They only have to quote any catalog price for IRS, not the lowest.) In aggregate, the Trumps' pocket the $50.
Source? Please elaborate.
Such trials would be expensive and extensive. It will either come out of our tax money and/or jack up prices for commercial products and services.
I'm all for a fair trial for such accusations; however we must as a society first agree on a way to pay for them.
A more practical approach would be a temporary furlough without pay if the evidence is relatively strong but not persuasive; a kind of plea-bargain.
Come on, they paid somebody $90m to receive a bj. Call me a SJW if you want, but that's just plain stupidity on Google's part in my book. It encourages more BS.
He can't do any worse than Washington DC.
Correction: "that's fine by me".
Modnays.
They tried that theory in Kansas a few years ago with terrible results: it blew the budget to heck. True, KS could go without roads, cops, and schools to balance the shrinking budget; but the people I know actually like civilization. If YOUR group wants to go back to the tax-free cave days, that's find by me; just don't do it where I live.
One problem is that the USA no longer has many capital-intensive industries. Investments often don't return enough to justify them in the owners' minds, so the owners find ways to pocket the money themselves instead.