Hmmm
Quoting an African about the behaviour of American blacks seems a bit odd, since I assume you are an American white and therefore you would have more contact with American blacks than an African. Right?
Apparently it did.
The problem with the crusades was not the presence of white Europeans in the Middle East, but rather the presence of hostile armies. The ethnicity of the armies really was not that relevant, it was their arms and their hostile intent. So, that can't be your example.
Enlighten me, of the instance when discrimination was valuable.
If no one cares, why not place less white people in video games. If no one cares, why not make the primary character in video games Black, Latino or Indian. After all it doesn't matter, right ? With the exception of historical games, does ethnicity matter ? Would Fable be worse if the main character was non-White? Was Duke Nukem better because the main character was white? What about Crysis?
I don't understand how you can say that having every character in every game be white is not weird. Even in your example, Texas is almost 40% Latino and more than 50% female
If you get "random searched" because you are flying standby, then you really aren't being randomly searched. Rather you are being selected because your behaviour places you in a risk category, kinda like buying your tickets with cash.
"Discrimination is not a bad thing"
I think the report is saying there is a difference between the game playing public and the ethnic makeup within games. They seem to be saying that whenever there is a choice, the outcome is the same
Doors that open outward will not work well when walls are opaque. If there is a corridor with foot traffic, it will not be safe to open the door if you cannot see if anyone is passing by. For obvious reasons.
I think the use of the term "Mongoloid" to describe Down Syndrome sufferers, limits its suitability for scientific discussion. Or any other forum where one does not wish to cause offense.
Ditto. That is the story I heard, Charles Schumer received a call and threw a hissy fit.
"As a capitalistic business owner, you work, I pay you; you don't work, I don't pay you. Seems like a basic theme throughout the history of the world. Retirees don't work, I don't see why I should still pay you. I'm sure you did a great job and provided excellent value for me to keep you around for 25+ years, but that gives me no reason to pay you for another 25+ years. In fact, I could probably hire 2 new people to replace you after you retire. If you're smart enough to properly plan and save for your own retirement, great, wonderful, I'll even through you a party. Otherwise, keep working."
The concept of a pension is simple, I put aside a portion of my salary that funds a defined benefit after I retire. The mechanism for achieving this is known, it is called an annuity. As I wrote before, these companies should've funded annuities when their employees retired, or when they vested. The cost should be paid when the work was performed. So what you as a "capitalistic business owner" are doing is promising to pay me 100, but actually paying me 80, in short you are stealing from me.
Ok, let everyone take a cut. Management takes a pay cut. Dealers renegotiate their terms. Landlords also. So do suppliers and other creditors. And finally customers, let customers take a cut too. The automakers obligation to the customers would be the warranties, they should cut these also. Everyone takes a cut right ?
A pension should be funded when the employee gains the benefit, that means if you have a vested pension after 5 years, after 5 years the employer should have enough money in a fund to pay for the pension. This way when the employee retires the employer will buy an annuity from an insurance company, and they will actually pay the pension. The "problem" is that future money is cheaper than current money, so companies can benefit from administering the pensions themselves. The profit that would be the insurance company can now be kept by the employer, but this comes along with increased risk.
Employees expect when they work they get paid, they expect that when they retire their promised pension is funded. They are going to get screwed because of accounting rules that most companies and governments exploit, which take an optimistic view of the pension obligations. Pensioners should not be dependent on the current state of the company, what the auto companies are actually doing is morally equivalent to retroactively cutting their salaries and sending them bills for the difference.
Define "parking problems"
Autoworkers negotiated a pay packet with their employers, which included pensions and other benefits. These obligations should have been funded by the companies when they were accrued, so the pension fund should be paying pension costs rather than the company. Likewise with health care costs for pensioners should've been funded.
Why should the pensioners pay, for what was obviously a management decision ? I don't see how you can slash the income of retired people in such a cavalier manner.
And why do the unions get all the blame, they aren't the ones who jack up the margin on the good cars that these companies make? The new Ford Thunderbird ? Was it the union selling these for above sticker ?
Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker
