Firefox seems to be getting more fanfare for some reason. I think it has to do with that large period of time where IE was a security sieve.
BTW, I'm watching CNBC and they keep advertising for a show that will be on later today (closing bell I think) where they talk about a new web browser "millions are flocking to" and show a screenshot of Firefox.
Look, I dislike the media as much as anybody, but just because they're not reporting the weak dollar as much as you like doesn't indicate some great conspiracy.
FWIW CNBC has covered it, and has been discussing it for some time.
No single media outlet is perfect. They *all* come with their biases, slants and human flaws. From ABC, to the BBC, to Al Jazeera.
Way to miss the point buddy. He was saying it's likely to be Googles fault, not the US Governments in this case. He further points out that other search engines still show the pictures.
As yet, we don't know *why* they aren't shown by google. Perhaps even the families of those involved asked they be removed?
It don't see the problem. The best workers get the jobs.
This is typically only true of skilled labor though. Unskilled labor has only their time and effort to bargain with...
If you can't see the difference between labor unions and a PAC, then I really don't know what to say... Unions tend to fight for more than salary you know. Job safety for factory workers, overtime for long hours, etc. Again, they have the problem that they can *only* get these benefits if everybody agrees to them. Non-union workers may accept less safety, less wages, etc. This could lead to more dangerous work being done for less money.
It's a balance issue. You don't want a minimum wage that is set too high (will definitely effect things negatively), but IMHO you don't want to get rid of it either. The mills in Lowell had young girls working long hours in dangerous environments for very little pay. Just because the mill owners *could* do that. Is it worth the cheaper linens? Is there any proof that the price of linens was kept lower because of this? It's entirely likely that the girls could have safer conditions, and be paid higher without effecting the cost of linen (depending on many factors, I know).
There's a difference between a PAC (or what have you) and collective bargaining though.
I can get 30 guys to demand $20/hour at McDonalds. Then 30 students come along and say they'll work for $3/hour (because they don't need as much). Who'll get hired? I understand that on the one hand it's their right to work for $3/hour, but now the other 30 guys are out of jobs and the total income of society has just gone down.
It's also my understanding (and I may be wrong here) that special circumstances are allowed for companies that are under a certain size (state by state perhaps?) so as to not impact small business as much.
How is it helpful that the minimum wage encourages (and result in) McDonald's cutting back on employees?
Well, the idea is that McDonalds will need X employees. No matter what they need at least those X. So they will need to hire them. When they hire these employees, they will undoubtably try to get them at the cheapest rate. In this situation the hireable pool is *vast*, and therefore the company is at a very large advantage. Especially given that the labor required is low-skill (little training costs).
Now this ties in with both my arguments. There are *some* people who are willing to accept a much lower standard of living than others. For whatever reason. These are the ones who are most likely to be hired if there is no minimum wage, or union agreed to salary. So in order to compete, everyone must lower their salary expectations to the lowest salary anybody is willing to accept.
Given that minimum wage is still pretty damn low, I'd like to know just how much it hurts the economy though. I'd wager that it does more to help the standard of living of the population than it does to hurt the economy.
If you've any links to studies I'd love to see them.
The minimum wage is most helpful in things like folks working at McD's and other low-skill jobs though... When all you have to bargain with is your time and labor, then you don't have much to bargain with at all. The service industry can't outsource, so this isn't an issue here.
There's nothing wrong with unions as long as each member has a choice of membership. Once you have forced membership, you lose any legitimacy. Consider that most union members in the United States are forced to join under a "join or you will be fired" situation (more raping of the working class).
Welllll, the only way a union can be truly effective is if everybody joins. If only a handful of workers are in the union, how do they go on strike? Collective bargaining only helps if everyone is bargaining.
Don't get me wrong. I believe the unions are corrupt by an large, and serve mostly to benefit themselves. But they have their uses.
It may seem funny to many what I said, but I allways wanderd what stops USA from conquering the world or at least start dividng the pie among the super powers. It could've done it economically and 2000 looks to me like the perfect time for it.
We don't really want to? Is that so hard to believe? I know everyone thinks we're imperialistic, and we've conquored Iraq and all. But we aren't really expansionist anymore (we were until we hit the pacific). I think we're pretty much happy with our 50 states.
It's mostly European contries (and the UK) that have a history of wanting to conquor the world...
Utah, btw, is *not* Christian. They're Mormons. Far cry from Bush's ideology.
Could it also be that many non-christians also share similar beliefs with the Christians? I'm not baptised any religion. I believe in no God. But I respect religion and others rights to it. Just because I'm not anti-religion it doesn't mean I'm religious.
I support pro-life (anti-abortion if you will) for non-religious reasons.
I don't totally support homosexual marriage (not anti-gay, just anti-gay-marriage - you can be gay for all I care, just don't expect the state to recognize it as "normal").
I think people should be able to pray if the like, when they like. A "moment of silence" in school is NOT forced prayer BTW.
We spent a whole week studying the effects of the minimum wage in my collge
econ class and I remember being amused that a minimum wage being bad is one of the
few things (non-partisan) economists agree on.
How so? How else can the companies be kept from all but raping the working class (and they will if they can)?
I'm a republican (well, conservative libertarian probably). I've always hated the idea of unions and minimum wage, but I've always seen them as sort of a necessary evil at times.
I would agree that George Bush has lost some of the principles of the Republican party, not the party.
I don't know how (or why) you equate republicans with religion. Perhaps you've heard too many zealots that happen to be republicans (and just assumed that all republicans were zealots)?
Good way to start a civil war actually. This is exactly the case of what happened in the 1800's.
I think it was George Washington who expressed his fear that the country should be divided not only along party lines, but also along geographical lines.
Slashdot Mirror
I get to pay for Social Security without the hope of getting any
It's almost like you're a citizen already!
Firefox seems to be getting more fanfare for some reason. I think it has to do with that large period of time where IE was a security sieve.
BTW, I'm watching CNBC and they keep advertising for a show that will be on later today (closing bell I think) where they talk about a new web browser "millions are flocking to" and show a screenshot of Firefox.
Look, I dislike the media as much as anybody, but just because they're not reporting the weak dollar as much as you like doesn't indicate some great conspiracy.
FWIW CNBC has covered it, and has been discussing it for some time.
No single media outlet is perfect. They *all* come with their biases, slants and human flaws. From ABC, to the BBC, to Al Jazeera.
After they called Florida for Gore...
It was despicable how they were all trying to be "first with calling the election." Don't blame Fox. They were all wrong on this matter.
You're the one who made the completely non sequiter remark about Afghanistan to me...
Many democrats have had similar things to say about the current US elections. Doesn't make it true does it?
:-P
The losers always think they were screwed. The winners always think things went fine. That's why you as *more than one* person.
Simple. Not finding information on a subject does not mean none exists.
Christ people, just because Google is Good(TM) doesn't mean you should forget how to lookup information using other sources!
Hey, they're not perfect! Go figure!
rectennas
Just one of those words one can't say without smirking...
Way to miss the point buddy. He was saying it's likely to be Googles fault, not the US Governments in this case. He further points out that other search engines still show the pictures.
As yet, we don't know *why* they aren't shown by google. Perhaps even the families of those involved asked they be removed?
Which bit did you think was wacko?
Hmm. The assumptions that Jeb Bush will a) Run for president, b) win the election, and c) support Microsoft.
I could also make the assumption that Hillary Clinton will run, win, and come down on Microsoft like a ton of bricks.
Don't you mean "King Jeb Bush?" If you're going to be a conspiracy wacko, you may as well do it correctly.
It don't see the problem. The best workers get the jobs.
This is typically only true of skilled labor though. Unskilled labor has only their time and effort to bargain with...
If you can't see the difference between labor unions and a PAC, then I really don't know what to say... Unions tend to fight for more than salary you know. Job safety for factory workers, overtime for long hours, etc. Again, they have the problem that they can *only* get these benefits if everybody agrees to them. Non-union workers may accept less safety, less wages, etc. This could lead to more dangerous work being done for less money.
It's a balance issue. You don't want a minimum wage that is set too high (will definitely effect things negatively), but IMHO you don't want to get rid of it either. The mills in Lowell had young girls working long hours in dangerous environments for very little pay. Just because the mill owners *could* do that. Is it worth the cheaper linens? Is there any proof that the price of linens was kept lower because of this? It's entirely likely that the girls could have safer conditions, and be paid higher without effecting the cost of linen (depending on many factors, I know).
BTW, I've found some pretty interesting info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage
I just don't think the issue is black and white.
There's a difference between a PAC (or what have you) and collective bargaining though.
I can get 30 guys to demand $20/hour at McDonalds. Then 30 students come along and say they'll work for $3/hour (because they don't need as much). Who'll get hired? I understand that on the one hand it's their right to work for $3/hour, but now the other 30 guys are out of jobs and the total income of society has just gone down.
It's also my understanding (and I may be wrong here) that special circumstances are allowed for companies that are under a certain size (state by state perhaps?) so as to not impact small business as much.
How is it helpful that the minimum wage encourages (and result in) McDonald's cutting back on employees?
Well, the idea is that McDonalds will need X employees. No matter what they need at least those X. So they will need to hire them. When they hire these employees, they will undoubtably try to get them at the cheapest rate. In this situation the hireable pool is *vast*, and therefore the company is at a very large advantage. Especially given that the labor required is low-skill (little training costs).
Now this ties in with both my arguments. There are *some* people who are willing to accept a much lower standard of living than others. For whatever reason. These are the ones who are most likely to be hired if there is no minimum wage, or union agreed to salary. So in order to compete, everyone must lower their salary expectations to the lowest salary anybody is willing to accept.
Given that minimum wage is still pretty damn low, I'd like to know just how much it hurts the economy though. I'd wager that it does more to help the standard of living of the population than it does to hurt the economy.
If you've any links to studies I'd love to see them.
The minimum wage is most helpful in things like folks working at McD's and other low-skill jobs though... When all you have to bargain with is your time and labor, then you don't have much to bargain with at all. The service industry can't outsource, so this isn't an issue here.
There's nothing wrong with unions as long as each member has a choice of membership. Once you have forced membership, you lose any legitimacy. Consider that most union members in the United States are forced to join under a "join or you will be fired" situation (more raping of the working class).
Welllll, the only way a union can be truly effective is if everybody joins. If only a handful of workers are in the union, how do they go on strike? Collective bargaining only helps if everyone is bargaining.
Don't get me wrong. I believe the unions are corrupt by an large, and serve mostly to benefit themselves. But they have their uses.
It may seem funny to many what I said, but I allways wanderd what stops USA from conquering the world or at least start dividng the pie among the super powers. It could've done it economically and 2000 looks to me like the perfect time for it.
We don't really want to? Is that so hard to believe? I know everyone thinks we're imperialistic, and we've conquored Iraq and all. But we aren't really expansionist anymore (we were until we hit the pacific). I think we're pretty much happy with our 50 states.
It's mostly European contries (and the UK) that have a history of wanting to conquor the world...
Utah, btw, is *not* Christian. They're Mormons. Far cry from Bush's ideology.
Could it also be that many non-christians also share similar beliefs with the Christians? I'm not baptised any religion. I believe in no God. But I respect religion and others rights to it. Just because I'm not anti-religion it doesn't mean I'm religious.
I support pro-life (anti-abortion if you will) for non-religious reasons.
I don't totally support homosexual marriage (not anti-gay, just anti-gay-marriage - you can be gay for all I care, just don't expect the state to recognize it as "normal").
I think people should be able to pray if the like, when they like. A "moment of silence" in school is NOT forced prayer BTW.
We spent a whole week studying the effects of the minimum wage in my collge econ class and I remember being amused that a minimum wage being bad is one of the few things (non-partisan) economists agree on.
How so? How else can the companies be kept from all but raping the working class (and they will if they can)?
I'm a republican (well, conservative libertarian probably). I've always hated the idea of unions and minimum wage, but I've always seen them as sort of a necessary evil at times.
I would agree that George Bush has lost some of the principles of the Republican party, not the party.
I don't know how (or why) you equate republicans with religion. Perhaps you've heard too many zealots that happen to be republicans (and just assumed that all republicans were zealots)?
Or if he'd taken Ohio which isn't a southern state!
Then perhaps you may want to qualify your "Only a SOUTHERN democrat will EVER win" with "Only a SOUTHERN democrat will EVER win again?"
And BTW, No chance? This was a fucking close election man. I'd say Kerry had a damn good chance!
Good way to start a civil war actually. This is exactly the case of what happened in the 1800's.
I think it was George Washington who expressed his fear that the country should be divided not only along party lines, but also along geographical lines.
Umn.. Remind me what state John F. Kennedy was from?
Allow me to help you to move. Perhaps you can convince some other liberals to go with you?
I'm glad *somebody* on this site realizes this. They're trying to put past actions into current context.