Are you accusing these companies of racist hiring practices?
No. Speaking generally.
General demographics of the company's employees is not evidence.
Correct. But Google, Facebook, Yahoo, and every other big company with complicated organizational structures where hiring decisions aren't centralized should be aware that the people they trust to make hiring decision sometimes have selfish motivations behind their decisions. I don't think you'd disagree with the generalized statement that "racist people exist" and extrapolating that to "racist people who make hiring decisions exist" isn't too much of a leap of faith. I'm not saying Google, Facebook, or Yahoo employ racists who make hiring decisions. I'm saying they ought to have some checks and balances in place to guard against allowing illegal practices from occurring within their organizations.
My post was a reply to the question "Why should company's care about this at all?" because I think there are very real reasons why companies should care even if they have no real reason to suspect their hiring managers are acting unlawfully.
Why would Google/Facebook/Yahoo or any other company be paying attention to the race, gender or religion when hiring?
Company's aren't supposed to be racist. People are occasionally racist. People do hiring. Hiring is liable to be racist if the people doing the hiring are racist. Company's have a responsibility to monitor the people doing the hiring to minimize racism within that process. If a company does pass over a better qualified minority because of racism (or sexism, for that matter) that is a problem for the company.
The usual villain here is Walmart. They have been abusing suppliers long before Amazon got in the act.
Point of consideration that Walmart bullies around smaller suppliers while Amazon is taking a stand against one of the major publishers with Hachette and Warner Bros which is operated by Time Warner who is currently seeking Anti-Trust approval to merge with Comcast.
If anything, Amazon's ability to stand up to Big Media seems to be in the best interest of consumers. Big Media is where the evil monopolies seem to be. Amazon's power over online sales relies on convenience, their customer supplied rating/feedback system, and their pricing policies. Amazon wants to charge small for high quality because cheap crap will be rated as such on Amazon and nobody will buy it. Meanwhile Walmart wants to charge small for low quality because who cares about customers and suppliers if they can earn 20% of half a Trillion bucks each year (http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/wmt/financials).
If I had a dime for every dime I have...
If I had $2 billion for every time you've said that...
if the user does a remote wipe
I do not claim to know details... but as you mentioned a remote wipe won't work on a phone that is powered off and there are things known as Faraday Cage that should block signals once the time to power on the device and take evidence off it arrives.
Can you explain to me... are there significant people who go "Off Grid" or are users with solar panels just offsetting part of the cost of their power?
I thought a small percent who have panels are producing more energy than they consume allowing them to "sell" it to the power company which means that they are due some amount of money... but still part of the Grid.
Between government meddling with regulations, oversight and taxation, and the whole "occupy" crowd making villains of those who have sacrificed for years to become successful, it's a wonder any entrepreneurs still exist.
Successful capitalists -- anybody who has more capital than they could spend in 100 lifetimes -- get an opportunity to allocate funds to things that benefit society. They earn the right to share the future. Too many pour billions of dollars into elections to buy regulations that have consensus not to benefit society. When so many successful capitalists are perceived to be focused on harming society like this, they are demonized.
Alas, the contributions of super-capitalists like Gates, Buffett, and Zuckerberg to try to benefit society get overlooked.
(except for publishers that constantly churn out shit games)
But most publishers occasionally churn out shit games. I think the game industry whole prefer that you spent more money on shit games OR spent money on trade magazines that tell you what games are shit or not. Your system, reasonable as it may be, ensures that money only gets spent on GOOD games which FORCES the industry to value high quality. I'm sure you know how much harder churning out a QUALITY games than shit games. It's A LOT harder.
The main focus of piracy on music... though... I think as long as the industry isn't suing people for thousands of dollars for downloading music than everybody is happy. I haven't heard of any recent high profile music lawsuit cases... so I assume this has basically stopped. Right?
This sort of financial activities is complete economic nonsense, as it brings nothing of value to people,
Indeed, economics is a zero-sum game. For every dollar somebody gains, somebody else loses a dollar.
companies or other concerns that actually produce something useful to society as a whole.
So companies are good, but buying and selling ownership rights of companies is very, very bad.
Just reading the
Not to mention the slice of the software industry whose bread-and-butter is "robot trading" software.
- by ways of a tax based on the speed of trading for instance -
"Sir, I pulled you over for doing 85 transactions per second in a 65 TPS zone."
and financial markets forced to become what they're supposed to be:
Financial tools for accumulating wealth?
places for investors to invest in real economic activities for the long haul.
So buying and selling ownership rights of companies is actually a good thing. I should get on that.
In all seriousness... lots of people and businesses struggle to "earn" more than they spend in a given month. The stock markets, however, offer people one option in case they have somehow managed to earn more than they need each month. The businesses who run the stock market are therefore entrusted in these people's wealth that is being accumulated for their retirement. People are free to use or ignore the stock market retirement companies. Some people may even be able to outperform these organizations in the long term because of lower overhead costs. Everybody else, however, trusts their retirement in these companies with deep pockets and access to "advantages" such as "trading robots" that maximize their retirement accounts. To this end... somebody else pays to balance those gains which is where TFS talks about being a "prey" instead of being a "predator". At the end of the day, though, if you think of the stock market as "Supplemental Social Security" (at least in US where SS is an implementation of a government-operated retirement organization) then maybe you'll be able to rest easier.
There should be a tax maybe
Why? No one has explained why anything needs to be done at all. It's all "rich people are making money therefore we need to screw it up for them".
Usage taxes are very common. Many jurisdictions have toll roads and parking meters for collecting funds when users elect to use those public resources. Congress controls interstate commerce within which these equity markets are classified and holds the rights to act when members of the public are misusing a market. I can't say whether I believe that trading algorithms are misusing the market, but it would be completely rational for Congress to institute a usage tax on equity market transactions if they felt misuse was occurring.
Fact is... though... that small usage taxes would be cost of doing business for successful trading algorithms and would cost regular users more money (theoretically lower profits, in both cases).... so Congress shouldn't rush into any decision to change the current system.