Is there actually a way for US businesses to prevent themselves from hostile takeover? Like, can they be "private limited companies" and just refuse to merge? If so, I think these guys should tell EA to fuck off, on principle.
Speak for yourself, I was never part of such a consensus. We had a nice slow evolution of user interfaces going on and they came in and fucked everything up.
That overly buttery stuff that's so rich it makes me want to throw up from a mile away? Eww.
I prefer their nice pizza sauce.
Believe it or not some of us like the fatty cheesy goodness on Pizza Hut pizzas, and as for meat feast, ohh baby.
I can take or leave "authentic" Italian wafer-thin crispy bases with virtually no cheese and often uncooked ingredients. Overrated.
"Suicide" is not a verb.
This stuff applies to the Firefox GUI rather than the underlying rendering engine. Use something that utilizes Gecko but without the crappy UI, like SeaMonkey or Pale Moon.
Every "ux expert" and "architect" seems to think they're god's own gift to mankind, and Mozilla is packed to the brim with those.
The main problem is that Mozilla is filled with project managers and senior devs who LISTEN to the UX 'experts' and let them drive the agenda. Why they do is beyond me. Perhaps it is a plot by Google or perhaps they are just morons.
Every non-aboriginal inhabitant of Australia is an immigrant.
Complete bullshit, as it seems you well understand:
Even the aboriginals are fairly recent arrivals if your perspective is wide enough.
I don't understand the racist hate.
No racist hate here, simply someone who thinks immigration should be controlled and targeted in the best interests of the country.
However, successive Australian Governments for a decade or more have been running record immigration rates - mostly under the guise of "skilled immigration" and associated hangers-on - with the twin primary objectives of suppressing wages and maintaining the property bubble. Simultaneously, they have been demonising the weakest and most helpless fleeing for their lives, who account for a rounding error in our immigrant intake.
Unsurprisingly, this systemic view of people as cogs in the machine to be used and discarded on demand has led to a similar culture amongst employers, most recently exposed by the exploitation and abuse of short-term holiday visa holders (usually "backpackers") by the farming industry.
As usual, the Greens have the right idea. Knock down the skilled immigrant intake substantially and increase the humanitarian intake. The footsoldiers of economic immigration can go somewhere else, we should only be importing the best and brightest through our skilled immigration plans, maximising the national interest, and using the rest of our "quota" to help as many people threatened by starvation, torture and death as possible.
When even the dodgy headline unemployment rates are running at 5%+ (real unemployment into the teens), the idea we need to be importing even more people to fight for fewer jobs is just flat out insulting - but the political right seem to believe they've reached the endgame and they're not even trying for a facade of propriety or governance in the national interest any more.
Some people use these terms in the moral and ethical, rather than legal, context.
Raising minimum wage *past a certain point* won't help anyone. If you've ever done basic calculus you will have come across the concept of oprimization - in the abstract for instance, finding where the derivative of a function that's some sort of concave-down curve crosses zero.
The minimum wage will be like that. If you graphed the spending power of the minimum wage people (their income minus their expenses) it will probably be some kind of curve. Starting from zero, the graph will slope upwards, until you hit a peak, and then it will slope downwards as the increased labour cost exceeds the benefit of higher wages.
We are probably somewhere to the left of this optimal point. The increase LA is making probably will move people closer to the optimal point. Increasing the minimum wage to $100/hr will move you to a point far to the right of the point at which the first derivative of the graph crosses zero.
Most farms are highly mechanised and the cost of labour makes up only a tiny part of the cost. (My dad's ex's family are farmers, and farms employ a tiny fraction of the number of people than they did even just 40 years ago).
That assumes 100% of the cost of a product is labour costs.
In reality this is not true. In your example, the wage might go from $60/day to $120/day, but the product will go from $60 before to $80 after. Competition will mean many businesses take lower profits rather than pass on the entire price increase, and virtually no products are 100% labour cost. While wages cannot be raised infinitely, there will be an optimal point, and I suspect we are well below that optimal point as other cities have already demonstrated.
Only if 100% of that product's cost is labour.
In reality this is rarely true, and competition means that businesses often can't pass on all of the cost increase - what it'll mean is businesses will make a little less profit, prices will increase by less than the increase in the minimum wage, and more people will have some sort of disposable income they can now spend on discretionary items. So sales increase.
Certainly you can't raise wages infinitely, and at some point you'll hit a peak, but I suspect we are a long way below that peak.
Kevin '07 was eager to open the immigration floodgates and let anyone in who wanted to buy property. He'd drunk deeply of the neoliberal koolaid.
The rule on staying alive as a program manager is to give 'em a number or give 'em a date, but never give 'em both at once.
