Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
The cited article says exactly what you wrote - that the name of the picture is "Nuclear Explosion on Earth from Space." What purpose did you intend for your post to have? Also, why did you post AC? Only logged in users can post on these pre-publication articles.
Not like those corporation give a rat's ass about the constitution or citizen liberties.
Hell, their "stalker economy" business model is partially responsible for enabling the NSA. We can expect them to do everything they can to minimize their exposure on this problem, even if it makes things worse for us regular citizens. It is just serendipity that our interests and their interests are kind of sort of aligned for the moment like they were aligned on SOPA but you don't hear a peep from them about the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) treaty negotiations.
It sounds to me like what you are saying is that some businesses cannot afford those highly paid union workers.
Oh please, not the oldest troll argument in the world.
But I know that when I see a surge in the "low-income sector", Occam's Razor tells me it's because the "high-income sector" is untenable.
Sure, that's why multi-billion dollar companies with massive profits pay so little that their low-income employees need food stamps. Because they can't afford proper wages. It would reduce profits to - OMG! - just double- instead of tripple-digit millions.
It's strawman, a lie, utter bullshit. It's a self-reinforcing feedback loop that is crushing our economies. If you weren't trolling, let me explain it in a simplified format:
There are two ways to run an economy.
One, you can pay everyone good and fair wages, which means everyone can afford to pay fair prices for goods, which means companies selling those goods can afford to pay those wages.
Two, you can pay shitty wages, which means lots of people can only afford very cheap products, which means companies need to sell their stuff very cheaply, which in turn leads to them only being able to pay shitty wages.
The choice between those two options is political, not economical.
No, they are smarter than going the legal way, as they know the courts would eat them alive if they tried (much like in the US, our supreme court has become the defender of the constitution against the government).
What they've done instead is to convince the government that we need a large low-income (aka working poor) sector, and the governments have created that, through incentives and changes in laws not related to unions.
Very few of those people are organized in a union. This way, they've taken the unions the power base they need to affect change.
In theory, sensors attached to our bodies (and appliances such as the fridge) will send a stream of health-related data -- everything from calorie and footstep counts to blood pressure and sleep activity -- to the cloud
No fucking way. My sensors will send my data to my computer in my house where no one else has access to it. Any automated analysis will be done on my computer where I control who can see the results. Any other design is nothing more than putting the band-wagon ahead of patients' interests.
Link to Original Source
Or not as well.
There was a masters thesis in my university that was about automated packaging. Basically, a company wanted to replace their manual packers with robots and the thesis was about figuring out how to pack a box with various items with the least waste of space.
After a year and many, many experiments, different algorithms and research, they kept the workers. The thesis ended up proving that even the best algorithm they could come up with was at best as good as the gut feeling of a human being who had been doing the job for a while.
We actually have two systems of worker representation in Germany, related but not identical.
The unions are much the same as everywhere else in the world. They represent all the workers of a certain trade.
The worker councils are small groups of employees of individual companies (or even individual sites for large companies), elected by all the workers. Their job is mostly focussed on day-to-day employee issues, like working conditions. They are explicitly not allowed to discuss wages, as that is union territory.
Usually, unions and worker councils work together, but they're not the same thing. And since this is a wage issue, Amazon referring to the worker councils is just a dishonest strawman, because the worker councils cannot negotiate wages. It's actually forbidden by law. (two years ago I could've told you the paragraph by heart, if you're interested, search the "Betriebsverfassungsgesetz", BetrVG.)
Your history lesson is interesting, but applies only to the USA, not to Germany. Here, unions arose initially during the industrialisation and became stronger, not weaker, in times of crisis. With the exception of the last decade or two, where anti-unionist forces have finally discovered how to weaken the european-style unions.
Over here, unions are workers banding together for protection. They're not greed-driven the way you imply for the US unions. While they usually make headlines when it's about money, many of the actual things they do are about things like workers safety, work hours and work conditions.
Disclaimer: I'm not and never have been a member of a union, but for professional reasons I know quite a bit about it and I've worked with union representatives.
Yeah actually they are. Every decision a CEO makes is a decision with potentially billions on the line.
You've got a monarchy view of corporate politics. Very few companies work like that. In most companies, the decisions that the CEO makes have already been through ten layers of preparation, checking, political in-fighting and throwing stuff out.
That, and the CEOs that I've met (and I've met a couple) are in generally smart and capable, but not 100 times as smart or capable as anyone else in the company, and quite a few of them base their decisions on extremely shaky grounds. They also fuck up regularily.
But in real life, very, very few decisions actually have billions on the line right then and there. And decisions that do are often not made by a CEO, but by the board of directors - it's decisions like selling the company or acquiring a competitor.
Most real-world operational decisions are nowhere near that size in consequences, because it takes months or years to make them happen and there's plenty of time to change course if things don't work out.
In general, if a company wastes a few billion dollars, it's not been one decision, but a series of mistakes by many people.
They get the time extended. Again and again.
So your point is that the concept of a shared culture is something the moneyed interests don't believe in. BFD.
I'm not sure where you're from, but I can speak for the US. We tend to be a fairly individualistic nation (still) and the idea of something being part of the culture as you mentioned is a real hard sell here.
Ever read the US constitution?
Does, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times" ring a bell?
What do you think happens after a "limited time?"
No, your point was that limiting free speech created the nazis.
How nice of you to redefine my point for me. Clearly the event that happened 80 years ago was the creation of the nazi party -- what they actually did after their power was entrenched is not something even worth referring to. Gas chambers, holocaust, world war II, etc not even worth the effort to write about.