The unsent element of this is very troubling. IANAL, but in my Business Law class much time was spent on the significance of offers and counteroffers actually being sent to be admissible and enforceable. An unsent text/email is the snail mail equivalent of a letter printed but not mailed. The act of mailing/sending puts a "finished" stamp on the communication that makes it one's official communication. It can be revised after the fact but releasing it make it official in a very special way. If this could stand, a person could go back and reference past auto-saved versions of a document. Since the document had been modified once, what is to say it could have been modified again? There has to be a marker that says "The version is complete" and a draft document simply doesn't have that.
In their current research model... the team found that incidences of Katrina-level hurricanes could be maintained
In 2015 there were 28 named storms. In 1887 there were 20, along with 1933. Severe storms have ranged in name from Allen (first of the year in August), Audrey (in June, also first), Carla (early but not first) to Harvey-Ike-Katrina (middle of the season) to Rita-Sandy-Wilma (late to last, Wilma in October.) We haven't the slightest clue how many hurricanes we will have each year, nor when a bad one will happen. Despite this a scientist claims that a model predicts that seeding the atmosphere with a chemical can predict the number and level of future hurricanes. I fail to see how my third grader could be less accurate guessing any of this.
Why do you think the current value of BTC represents a bubble?
We have been conditioned by central banks to accept decreasing purchasing power for our fiat currency, in no small part because debt confers value to the borrower through inflation. Inflation allows the government to claim the economy is growing, regardless of whether the actual purchasing power of dollars of GDP actually buys more stuff. In 1900, a pound of raw steak could be bought for $0.13. Now it will cost you $7 or more. That represent a 5,200% increase in cost.
BTC is designed to be an inflation free currency. Because the Fed is still creating dollars by the trillion every year, that declining value of the dollar is going to be reflected in the rising dollar cost of BTC. I think that BTC rose quickly in value because initially people with money didn't accept it as real enough to risk loss should it prove to be fake. Now that it is more widely accepted (I believe a recent real estate transaction was closed using BTC) it is being more correctly valued in terms of the fiat currencies. The real event for which to watch is the day a government entity accepts BTC as payment. They will resist, because they cannot control it, but at some point somebody will say we'll accept value in whatever form is offered.
Stop using it. If you aren't paying for it, you are the product being sold. Until, and unless, users quit Facebook until Zuckerf*cker behaves different this will continue.
If you go back far enough, women weren't anything men did at a level much greater than zero. I think that what is going on here is that fields have opened up to women and those looking for this kind of thing are saying "if this field is equally open to men and women, i.e. there are no formal barriers to entry, then the demographics should be 50/50. If the breakdown is not 50/50 then there must be some other factor denying women access to those roles."
What Damore has done, in whatever ham handed way it might have been perceived, is ask the question "Is it possible that there are reasons built into what it means to be male or female that might explain this difference as opposed to it being the result of oppression?" He, of course, had to be destroyed by the "there must be equal representation crowd" because the alternative is unthinkable and unacceptable, even if true.
I felt he actually attempted to qualify his statement when he talked about height. Saying that men are taller than women on average does not prevent there being a tall female or short male, only that in general men are taller than women.
I personally believe that with all the undeniable genetic physical differences between men and women that to claim our brains are somehow exactly equal is illogical beyond comprehension. Just because there are differences shouldn't mean one or the other should be pushed toward or away from a particular field. It would mean, however, that judging participation on demographics alone is the wrong way to go.
The real problem is there there is no thing economically valued by society that women can do measurably better than men. The fastest woman in the world's record 100m dash, 10.49s is.5 seconds slower than the fastest high school boy at 10.00s. Playing against men in four PGA events Michelle Wie never even made the cut, much less win. If some significant portion of the economy was dominated by women people would say "men are better at X and women are better at Y and we all get along accepting our differences." Instead we have "men are better at X and in the things we can measure women are almost as good as men, but not." Since we can't measure "coding aptitude" or "engineering prowess" like we can time, weight or distance we look to these places for equality, when it may or not even be proper to do so.
(I can't wait to see the comments or where this gets modded.)
The funny thing is that most people capable of posting on/. look rich by the standards of the average impoverished person. The only people safe in a revolution are those with nothing and those able to gather a mob projecting enough force to protect themselves. Everyone else's survival is a roll of the dice.
It is very unfortunate this post was made by an Anonymous Coward. I would really like to know what alternate form of business operation they would propose to the existing corporate culture.
The world does not revolve around you. As a series, Law & Order has no beginning middle or end and premiered before current college graduates were born. People like different things and Netflix could not care less what *you* want. They are going to make shows to draw viewers. They know what you watch. They don't need Nielsen ratings. If you like a show, watch it. Enough people like you and it will continue. Too few and it will get the axe. If you want Netflix to know what you want, show them through viewing behavior. This is about as direct democracy as you can get. Just get on and vote.
The Alaska dividend is funded through a 12.5% gross royalty on all oil, Alaska's natural resource, produced in the state. Since the "natural resource" of the US is its dynamic economy, I am curious how Zuckerberg would response to a 12.5% royalty on FB gross revenues to fund his UBI.
I think the justices recognized that one cannot have discourse of any kind if speech is prohibited. Once a group can determine what is or is not allowed, the line gets very subjective in a hurry. As things get more contentious, the freedom "to call a spade a spade" must be inviolate.
(Yes, I chose that reference on purpose, specifically to illustrate the point. The phrase dates to the 1500's and is exactly representative of the speech SJW's would ban simply because they take offense when none is intended or given.)
That is, if they could catch me to give me a ticket...:-)
Catching a Tesla would be trival. An S is lightning fast for only a very short distance; a P100D can't even make one lap of the 14 mile Nürburgring at speed. All an officer has to do is chase until it goes into "limp" mode.
He appears to have the intellectual capacity of an Etch a Sketch.
And yet he is worth several billion dollars and is the most powerful person on the planet. Think about it for a moment. He is the first person in history to beat the Clinton-MSM team in open combat. I am going with "he is way smarter than people realize."
We'll see if Trump is in the pocket of Big Solar or Big Oil in a few hours.
Why does a person have to be in some group or another's pocket to make a decision? I guess it is too much to ask for a person to look at their understanding of a situation and make a decision based on their own rational mind.
At this point in time, no nation on earth has ever successfully stopped an ICBM attack. My guess is that were a country attacked and some sizable fraction of incoming missiles were stopped, the people who did survive would consider the defense to be very effective.
Pretty sure you mean continuous civilizations. Not too sure how a civilization can be contiguous.
That having been said, China's problem is that it exists as we know it only because Zhou Zhang unified the country by force. Any country formed that way must be held down by its rulers until the population has enough and throws the rulers out. I don't see a change in our lifetimes to how China acts.
Having lived when computer gaming was new it is eye opening to learn how innovative early developers had to be to get around limitations of the systems at the time. Today we take nearly lifelike VR for granted when early developers had to choose between display or sound. I often wonder how much creative programming we don't see in a world of effectively unlimited memory, storage and cpu cycles.
Let's go with a nice capitalist version: A worker is underpaid when his or her regular expenses are higher than what they make in net income during the same average period.
This could not be farther from "capitalist." As a business owner I could not possibly care less how much your life decisions cost you. My only concern is whether the cost of employing a person is justified by the value they will provide, either now or eventually.
A worker is a human life whose value is independent of what they are able to produce, period.
Is it not obvious I am talking about a worker's output and not their value as a human being?
If the worker's output is not profitable for the company, the business should raise its prices so it can be profitable while still supporting its workers for their time. If the market does not support such prices, the business model should not be considered viable.
No. Please take note of all the restaurants in California that have closed in the last few months that found out what happened when they tried to raise prices to accommodate the increased minimum wage.
Rather than say "this worker produces $5/hour of output", let's phrase it as "this worker produces output for which the market now pays $5/hour". That leaves open the options to increase the rate the market will pay (marketing),
See above
increase the worker's output (automation)
How about the machines that replace workers altogether so their wage goes to the true minimum wage of zero?
or to accept that the business as it exists now is not viable (reorganization).
This is a false dichotomy. It isn't "raise prices or re-org" The third choice is that the business can choose to limit production capacity to that which it can do profitably. There are businesses that do this.
I have yet to see an argument for why "business" is a good reason to lock people into a job that doesn't cover their expenses.
Who says they are locked in? Right to work goes both ways.
I fail to see how it is beneficial to society to essentially enslave people so an entrepreneur can pitch a product to a market that won't sustain it.
Whoever said society is supposed to benefit from anything a business owner does? A business owner operates a business to accumulate value for himself and no other. His goal is to be compensated for providing a service or good at a price greater than the cost to produce. He doesn't care if he hires people to do it or buys robots to do the same job. "Societal benefit" is the last consideration. He might realize a profit for providing a service or good that society views as beneficial but that is not the same thing.
What makes starting a business such a special event that it requires employees to live in poverty? If your business model is so bad and your business so unsuccessful that you have to underpay your workforce, perhaps you shouldn't be starting a business. I know it's the Great American Dream to own a business, but perhaps we should ensure nobody else gets screwed over in the process?
Please define "underpay." A worker is worth less than the value he or she creates, period. If the work a person does only generates $5.00 an hour in value, are you making the case that the worker should be paid more anyway? How long do expect that employer to continue employing that worker when the revenue generated doesn't cover said employee's cost? Is it okay to "screw over" the employer by making that person pay more to the employee than he/she generates in profit?
Slashdot Mirror
Without a will, most states have set percentages that go to each blood relative. No bickering at all; spouse gets X%, kids get Y%, etc.
The unsent element of this is very troubling. IANAL, but in my Business Law class much time was spent on the significance of offers and counteroffers actually being sent to be admissible and enforceable. An unsent text/email is the snail mail equivalent of a letter printed but not mailed. The act of mailing/sending puts a "finished" stamp on the communication that makes it one's official communication. It can be revised after the fact but releasing it make it official in a very special way. If this could stand, a person could go back and reference past auto-saved versions of a document. Since the document had been modified once, what is to say it could have been modified again? There has to be a marker that says "The version is complete" and a draft document simply doesn't have that.
In their current research model ... the team found that incidences of Katrina-level hurricanes could be maintained
In 2015 there were 28 named storms. In 1887 there were 20, along with 1933. Severe storms have ranged in name from Allen (first of the year in August), Audrey (in June, also first), Carla (early but not first) to Harvey-Ike-Katrina (middle of the season) to Rita-Sandy-Wilma (late to last, Wilma in October.) We haven't the slightest clue how many hurricanes we will have each year, nor when a bad one will happen. Despite this a scientist claims that a model predicts that seeding the atmosphere with a chemical can predict the number and level of future hurricanes. I fail to see how my third grader could be less accurate guessing any of this.
Why the storm has such an odd wind-speed-pressure relationship isn't entirely clear.
Maybe because people think they understand weather and climate better than they actually do?
Why do you think the current value of BTC represents a bubble?
We have been conditioned by central banks to accept decreasing purchasing power for our fiat currency, in no small part because debt confers value to the borrower through inflation. Inflation allows the government to claim the economy is growing, regardless of whether the actual purchasing power of dollars of GDP actually buys more stuff. In 1900, a pound of raw steak could be bought for $0.13. Now it will cost you $7 or more. That represent a 5,200% increase in cost.
BTC is designed to be an inflation free currency. Because the Fed is still creating dollars by the trillion every year, that declining value of the dollar is going to be reflected in the rising dollar cost of BTC. I think that BTC rose quickly in value because initially people with money didn't accept it as real enough to risk loss should it prove to be fake. Now that it is more widely accepted (I believe a recent real estate transaction was closed using BTC) it is being more correctly valued in terms of the fiat currencies. The real event for which to watch is the day a government entity accepts BTC as payment. They will resist, because they cannot control it, but at some point somebody will say we'll accept value in whatever form is offered.
Stop using it. If you aren't paying for it, you are the product being sold. Until, and unless, users quit Facebook until Zuckerf*cker behaves different this will continue.
If you go back far enough, women weren't anything men did at a level much greater than zero. I think that what is going on here is that fields have opened up to women and those looking for this kind of thing are saying "if this field is equally open to men and women, i.e. there are no formal barriers to entry, then the demographics should be 50/50. If the breakdown is not 50/50 then there must be some other factor denying women access to those roles."
.5 seconds slower than the fastest high school boy at 10.00s. Playing against men in four PGA events Michelle Wie never even made the cut, much less win. If some significant portion of the economy was dominated by women people would say "men are better at X and women are better at Y and we all get along accepting our differences." Instead we have "men are better at X and in the things we can measure women are almost as good as men, but not." Since we can't measure "coding aptitude" or "engineering prowess" like we can time, weight or distance we look to these places for equality, when it may or not even be proper to do so.
What Damore has done, in whatever ham handed way it might have been perceived, is ask the question "Is it possible that there are reasons built into what it means to be male or female that might explain this difference as opposed to it being the result of oppression?" He, of course, had to be destroyed by the "there must be equal representation crowd" because the alternative is unthinkable and unacceptable, even if true.
I felt he actually attempted to qualify his statement when he talked about height. Saying that men are taller than women on average does not prevent there being a tall female or short male, only that in general men are taller than women.
I personally believe that with all the undeniable genetic physical differences between men and women that to claim our brains are somehow exactly equal is illogical beyond comprehension. Just because there are differences shouldn't mean one or the other should be pushed toward or away from a particular field. It would mean, however, that judging participation on demographics alone is the wrong way to go.
The real problem is there there is no thing economically valued by society that women can do measurably better than men. The fastest woman in the world's record 100m dash, 10.49s is
(I can't wait to see the comments or where this gets modded.)
I would not be the least bit surprised, though, to discover that the volcanoes are currently completely inactive.
Keyword there is "currently." Dormant, and even extinct, volcanoes have a history of moving suddenly to the "active" category.
Heat beats Ice.
I think Jon Snow is banking on this.
The funny thing is that most people capable of posting on /. look rich by the standards of the average impoverished person. The only people safe in a revolution are those with nothing and those able to gather a mob projecting enough force to protect themselves. Everyone else's survival is a roll of the dice.
It is very unfortunate this post was made by an Anonymous Coward. I would really like to know what alternate form of business operation they would propose to the existing corporate culture.
Dear Dickbreath:
The world does not revolve around you. As a series, Law & Order has no beginning middle or end and premiered before current college graduates were born. People like different things and Netflix could not care less what *you* want. They are going to make shows to draw viewers. They know what you watch. They don't need Nielsen ratings. If you like a show, watch it. Enough people like you and it will continue. Too few and it will get the axe. If you want Netflix to know what you want, show them through viewing behavior. This is about as direct democracy as you can get. Just get on and vote.
The Alaska dividend is funded through a 12.5% gross royalty on all oil, Alaska's natural resource, produced in the state. Since the "natural resource" of the US is its dynamic economy, I am curious how Zuckerberg would response to a 12.5% royalty on FB gross revenues to fund his UBI.
In a way it is surprising because there has been little dissent among the lower courts.
I think this is because the appeals were made to judges/courts of a similar mindset.
I think the justices recognized that one cannot have discourse of any kind if speech is prohibited. Once a group can determine what is or is not allowed, the line gets very subjective in a hurry. As things get more contentious, the freedom "to call a spade a spade" must be inviolate.
(Yes, I chose that reference on purpose, specifically to illustrate the point. The phrase dates to the 1500's and is exactly representative of the speech SJW's would ban simply because they take offense when none is intended or given.)
That is, if they could catch me to give me a ticket... :-)
Catching a Tesla would be trival. An S is lightning fast for only a very short distance; a P100D can't even make one lap of the 14 mile Nürburgring at speed. All an officer has to do is chase until it goes into "limp" mode.
He appears to have the intellectual capacity of an Etch a Sketch.
And yet he is worth several billion dollars and is the most powerful person on the planet. Think about it for a moment. He is the first person in history to beat the Clinton-MSM team in open combat. I am going with "he is way smarter than people realize."
We'll see if Trump is in the pocket of Big Solar or Big Oil in a few hours.
Why does a person have to be in some group or another's pocket to make a decision? I guess it is too much to ask for a person to look at their understanding of a situation and make a decision based on their own rational mind.
At this point in time, no nation on earth has ever successfully stopped an ICBM attack. My guess is that were a country attacked and some sizable fraction of incoming missiles were stopped, the people who did survive would consider the defense to be very effective.
That having been said, China's problem is that it exists as we know it only because Zhou Zhang unified the country by force. Any country formed that way must be held down by its rulers until the population has enough and throws the rulers out. I don't see a change in our lifetimes to how China acts.
I think you meant 30 million, not 30,000.
Having lived when computer gaming was new it is eye opening to learn how innovative early developers had to be to get around limitations of the systems at the time. Today we take nearly lifelike VR for granted when early developers had to choose between display or sound. I often wonder how much creative programming we don't see in a world of effectively unlimited memory, storage and cpu cycles.
Let's go with a nice capitalist version: A worker is underpaid when his or her regular expenses are higher than what they make in net income during the same average period.
This could not be farther from "capitalist." As a business owner I could not possibly care less how much your life decisions cost you. My only concern is whether the cost of employing a person is justified by the value they will provide, either now or eventually.
A worker is a human life whose value is independent of what they are able to produce, period.
Is it not obvious I am talking about a worker's output and not their value as a human being?
If the worker's output is not profitable for the company, the business should raise its prices so it can be profitable while still supporting its workers for their time. If the market does not support such prices, the business model should not be considered viable.
No. Please take note of all the restaurants in California that have closed in the last few months that found out what happened when they tried to raise prices to accommodate the increased minimum wage.
Rather than say "this worker produces $5/hour of output", let's phrase it as "this worker produces output for which the market now pays $5/hour". That leaves open the options to increase the rate the market will pay (marketing),
See above
increase the worker's output (automation)
How about the machines that replace workers altogether so their wage goes to the true minimum wage of zero?
or to accept that the business as it exists now is not viable (reorganization).
This is a false dichotomy. It isn't "raise prices or re-org" The third choice is that the business can choose to limit production capacity to that which it can do profitably. There are businesses that do this.
I have yet to see an argument for why "business" is a good reason to lock people into a job that doesn't cover their expenses.
Who says they are locked in? Right to work goes both ways.
I fail to see how it is beneficial to society to essentially enslave people so an entrepreneur can pitch a product to a market that won't sustain it.
Whoever said society is supposed to benefit from anything a business owner does? A business owner operates a business to accumulate value for himself and no other. His goal is to be compensated for providing a service or good at a price greater than the cost to produce. He doesn't care if he hires people to do it or buys robots to do the same job. "Societal benefit" is the last consideration. He might realize a profit for providing a service or good that society views as beneficial but that is not the same thing.
What makes starting a business such a special event that it requires employees to live in poverty? If your business model is so bad and your business so unsuccessful that you have to underpay your workforce, perhaps you shouldn't be starting a business. I know it's the Great American Dream to own a business, but perhaps we should ensure nobody else gets screwed over in the process?
Please define "underpay." A worker is worth less than the value he or she creates, period. If the work a person does only generates $5.00 an hour in value, are you making the case that the worker should be paid more anyway? How long do expect that employer to continue employing that worker when the revenue generated doesn't cover said employee's cost? Is it okay to "screw over" the employer by making that person pay more to the employee than he/she generates in profit?
Which gives me a great idea for an app...is there a "herd culling" category?
I think one searches for "Darwin effect."