Caffeine is already banned as a PED above certain quantities. (Or at least it was last time I checked)
One of the things that they teach at MBA school is that long badgering documents can make up for things like facts and logical arguments.
Really? At what business school and in what class do they allegedly teach this? Unlike you I actually have a business degree and strangely I can't recall that ever being a part of the curriculum.
You are making up a bunch of bullshit with no factual basis whatsoever.
If you look at the documentation in MBA paradises such as military procurement it easily runs into millions of pages for even the simplest of military kit.
The reason that military procurement has a lot of bureaucracy attached is because there is a long and proud tradition of people trying (and often succeeding) at ripping the government off. But you just keep going on trying to create your mythical MBA boogeyman.
Oh, and I've been involved in government procurement. I've sold kit to the military and worked at places like Boeing. Your assertion that there are "millions of pages for even the simplest of military kit" is a complete fabrication not supported by reality. If you are selling something like an M1 tank or an F22 then sure there is a lot of paperwork just like there would be for any complicated product. But for simple products there is a fairly modest amount of bureaucracy - quite manageable if you know what you are doing and not really worse than a demanding private sector customer.
The apple next acqusition didn't matter much until apple mattered again with the iphone.
Apple "mattered again" long before the iPhone hit the market. The products that made Apple relevant again was first the iMac followed a few years later by the iPod. Apple absolutely dominated the mobile MP3 market and still does even today. Apple's financial and mindshare picture was strong again long before the iPhone was ever released.
Somebody please provide ONE case of a merger making a bad company better.
Define "bad company" first. Bad according to what measurable criteria?
There is plenty of evidence that most mergers tend to destroy value for shareholders but that doesn't mean the companies were necessarily "bad" or "good" beforehand. There is also plenty of evidence that many mergers are not good for consumers. But again, that doesn't mean the companies were bad or good.
I can provide you examples of mergers improving the financial and/or competitive position of the companies involved. They aren't hard to find. I can find you more examples of mergers hurting the finances and competitive position. But unless you can clarify what you mean by "bad company" then your question is more or less rhetorical.
Humankind faces a surplus of employable bodies, and a deficit of employer positions, in the industrialized world.
That's because China and India have been on the economic sidelines for the last 100+ years. Now that they have gotten their act together somewhat they have flooded the labor market and created an oversupply situation. This has almost nothing to do with automation - merely supply and demand. We have had 1/3 of the human population sitting on the economic sidelines and now they have entered the market in a big way with a flood of relatively cheap labor. That is naturally going to create an economic brake on wages and employment levels in the rest of the world.
Nature used to auto-correct overpopulation problems, with food supply vs. demand being the major engine. Is that what we're going to see when the whole world becomes third world?
Perhaps you hadn't noticed but when economic conditions improve, birth rates tend to fall. Often they fall below replacement.
The banking system should eventually go bust. Probably not tomorrow, but all we have managed to do so far is delay the inevitable
Based on what? Why should I believe that the banking system is suddenly untenable to a degree that it's demise is inevitable? Please present actual evidence rather than soundbite opinions. There are FAR simpler and more compelling arguments (I outline one below) regarding why wages are stagnating recently than debt levels.
The loans they have issued cannot be repaid. The only question is how we are not going to repay them. Either we go bankrupt, or we find some other way to wipe off the debt.
Can't repay them? The US debt as a percent of GDP isn't even the highest it has ever been. It was higher right after WWII. The way to reduce the debt is simple - either raise taxes or reduce spending or both. We merely lack to political will to do this at the present. The notion that we have debts that "cannot" be repaid is nonsense. As for individuals there is copious data showing that individuals and households have been paying down debt levels significantly since 2008. Companies have balance sheets that are historically very strong with large amounts of cash and relatively low debt levels overall.
The Great Depression started with the stock crash of 1929, lasting for the next 10-ish years. But it was the rising debts of the 1920's that were the real problem. Through the depression, those debts started to reduce. But it took the huge spending effort and industrialisation, fighting WWII to really eliminate them. Setting us up for the boom years of the 50's and 60's.
The boom years of the 50's and 60's were largely because the US economy was the only one left standing after WWII. Once the rest of the world recovered the US then had to compete on a more even footing and so the easy money was gone. Our debt level as a percent of GDP was higher after WWII than it is now. That's not to say that our current debt level is responsible in any way but we aren't in uncharted territory either.
The BIG thing that people seem to be overlooking is that we have had about 1/3 of the human population in China and India on the sidelines economically for the last 100+ years. We have a sudden flood of labor into the market in the last 30 years which wasn't a meaningful part of the economy previously. When you have to compete on labor costs against someone else with lower labor costs it tends to hold back wages. The US has among the highest per-capita GDP in the world and the EU on average isn't far behind. There is no reasonable argument to be made that the US is somehow special and will manage to maintain those high wages indefinitely. A reversion to the mean should not surprise anyone.
About 33 percent said technology was a central reason that median wages had been stagnant over the past decade, 20 percent said it was not and 29 percent were unsure.
Which means nobody has any real idea and the data isn't conclusive yet one way or the other. Furthermore economists are noted for being unable to come to a consensus. There's an old joke that if you ask 10 economists about something you'll get 11 opinions. If they do come to a consensus about something THAT is worth paying attention to. Otherwise it is pretty much business as usual. I also think that you'll find that those percentages correlate heavily with the political leanings of the economists being polled in this very unscientific poll.
More than 16 percent of men between the ages of 25 and 54 are not working, up from 5 percent in the late 1960s; 30 percent of women in this age group are not working, up from 25 percent in the late 1990s.
Umm, perhaps that has quite a bit to do with the fact that we're still recovering from the Great Recession. You know, the economic problems of the last several years that have NOTHING to do with AI or automation and EVERYTHING to do with finance run amok? Hell, prior to the crash in 2008-9 unemployment was at historic lows.
I could buy this analogy if the email originates in the U.S. or is destined for and accessed by a person within the U.S. But if neither circumstance applies, then like the airmail scenario the U.S. would have no reasonable jurisdiction.
Yes they would if the document was under subpoena. If you mail the document before it is subject to a request for it then you might (emphasis might) be ok, but once the document becomes relevant to a court proceeding you are obligated to produce it AND to ensure that it remains producible. If you mail away or destroy a document then the court generally has the right to treat that action as incriminating. And well they should otherwise everyone could simply destroy any document or mail them away to avoid self-incrimination.
According to this, Bush approved the general program in 2002 but wasn't briefed on the specifics of the brutal methods being used until 2006, with which he was uncomfortable:
I doubt he asked either because then he wouldn't have plausible deniability. And if he was "uncomfortable" with the specifics once he became aware of them it didn't seem to cause him to act on his supposed discomfort. He was the president at the time and if he told them to stop they (probably) would have. If he didn't tell them to stop then he was the spineless misanthrope many of us suspected him to be.
If torturing one prisoner could demonstrably save millions of lives, the act might still be immoral but it would certainly be welcomed by nearly everyone
That my friend is the very definition of a strawman argument with a bit of Reductio ad absurdum thrown in for good measure.
That's a fancy way of saying your argument is nonsense.
Oh just fuck off. If you actually read TFA, you'd see that it also indicates that Bush had little to no knowledge of the specifics of the interrogations or their brutality
Ahh, plausible deniability. I'm pretty sure he didn't ask either and it wasn't as if no one ever brought the subject up. Almost everyone involved reports to him so he is responsible on some level regardless of whether he knew all the details or not.
Also, waterboarding was done on 3 prisoners, though the media would have you believe every single prisoner in gitmo had it done to them. The onus here is on the CIA, primarily.
The CIA reports to the president. Even if it was just 1 person that is 1 too many. I expect our leaders and those trusted with protecting this country to behave better.
They didn't have fun, to be sure, but brutal it wasn't.
Your ability to think of something more horrific does not mean it was not brutal. All you proved is that there are even more horrible things that can be done but that does not in any way mitigate or excuse needlessly harsh treatment of another human being. Just because you don't leave a mark doesn't mean it isn't torture and certainly doesn't make it right.
C is a great language, it's just that most humans are incapable of using it safely and securely
That sentence is self-contradicting. To my mind C cannot simultaneously be a "great language" and be impossible for most people to use safely. I would posit that to be considered a great language, the ability to use the language safely and securely by someone of ordinary skill in programming is a necessary condition.
Since we are so fond of automotive analogies here... While the power and utility of C is undeniable, it's kind of like a car with too much horsepower and not enough traction. Really talented people can handle it but most should drive something else. It might be amazing in the right hands but that doesn't make it great.
Drugs you can show completion of a program, swear you've been clean for two years, have testimonials from your preacher, rabbi and yoga instructor.
Better idea is to voluntarily test yourself on a regular (monthly?) basis. I know doctors who do this so that in the event of a lawsuit they can prove that they were not chemically impaired. If anyone questions them then they can produce a multi-year stack of clean drug tests.
However, there's a big difference between a felony and a misdemeanor, depending on the crime.
Often there is very little or very illogical differences. In many places a teenager voluntarily sending a picture of themselves without clothing to someone else counts as a felony (considered child porn) whereas an adult doing the exact same thing to the exact same person for the exact same reason would not be considered a crime at all in some cases. In fact the teenager in that case may get the privilege of registering as a sex offender for the rest of eternity even if the picture was just sent to a boyfriend/girlfriend. It's absurd but it happens. The line between felony and misdemeanor is an often arbitrary and capricious one and not all felonies are particularly serious crimes.
That said, if someone is a cocaine addict I definitely wouldn't want him or her in my organization, especially if he had access to valuable information or resources that he could sell to pay for his next week of fixes.
That's an awfully broad brush you have there. I have an alcoholic who works for me. Served time in prison because of it and lost his driver's license for over a decade. He's been sober for some years now but he'll always be an alcoholic. He's a good worker, nice guy and very reliable. He just had a problem with addiction. You could easily substitute alcohol for cocaine and the situation would identical. Just because someone has/had a problem with substance abuse does not mean they cannot ever be trusted again. They have to prove they can handle the responsibility but a blanket ban against people who have had a problem in the past is needlessly harsh. You have to address it on a case by case basis.