According to http://smallbusiness.chron.com/profit-margin-supermarket-22467.html, your run of the mill grocery store has a profit margin of a whopping 1%. Can you explain to me how that's supposed to pay for increasing the wages of the majority of their workforce by 100%. Labor is the biggest cost of doing business, pretty much across the board.
All similar business in the same geographical area pay generally the same wages, and so have the same general costs of doing business. As such, any business that attempts to inflate their profit margins have really only one way to do so: by increasing the price of their products. But if they were to do so, they will be immediately underpriced by their area competitors. As such, profit margins of general businesses, not just grocery stores, but all general businesses, tend to be razor thin. They can only charge a bare minimum above the cost of their products, in order to stay in business.
And we're not talking about just your cashiers in the grocery store. The companies that run the trucks that deliver the goods to the store also have to raise their minimum wage too, and will also have to increase their costs to deliver goods, which gets passed down to the grocery stores, which will also have to increase their own prices on account of that too.
The janitorial services, that send their workers to the local businesses, to clean their toilets, will also have to increase their own minimum wages too. This also translates to their direct costs, which they have no choice but to pass down to the grocery store, as their customer, who will also have to increase their product prices on account of that too.
You can come up with a myriad of examples. Do you know who really ends up paying for the $15 minimum wage? You, the helpless consumer. Always.
There's an old term for all of this. It's called "trickle-down economics". Perhaps you've heard of it. Much derided by the radical left; perhaps the term was originally poorly chosen. A better name would've been "real life".
... or whatever it's actually called. I know that the left-wing movement to drive the minimum wage up to $15/hr has a catchy name of some kind, but I fail to recall it at the moment.
The only thing this movement demonstrates is the abject failure of the US public scrool system to teach young skulls full of mesh some basic economics. Instead, they come out believing that every filthy, greedy, business owner has a money printing press in the basement. Either that, or that the only way to force the bourgeoisie fatcat to pay the proletariat a fair share, is through minimum wage legislation.
Only a complete lack of understanding of basic principles of economics could result in anyone thinking that the only thing that will happen after raising the minimum wage to $15, is that everyone will be paid $15/hr. And that nothing else, whatsoever, will change. Everything will remain exactly as they are today, except that everyone will be making $15/hr, at least. Socialist utopia.
They'll be in for a shock once they figure out that business owners are not hiding a money printing press in the basement, that they could use to pay their entry-level workers $15/hr. They simply don't have the money, and no amount of radical, left-wing socialist propaganda is going to change that. No amount of protests will have any effect on that. The only thing that the Mr. Store Owner could possibly do, at that point, is either fire their workers, or raise their prices. There are no other options. A lot of good will the $15/hr minimum wage will do for them, when they're not the ones being employed, or when a loaf bread costs $11, and a gallon of milk costs $8. But, hey, they're making a living wage now!
... New exam rule: no wearing of wristwatches, of any kind, while taking an exam. You want to know the time left? See this big clock on the wall. This solution seems too obvious. Am I missing something?
Scratching my head here. What's the conclusion to be drawn, from these experiments? That if we don't want to gain weight, we should all move to Florida?
It seems like the only linked article is relevant to the Slashdot story immediately preceding this one...
Must be the new owners of Slashdot, working hard to correct the persistent problem the prior owners with duplicate stories getting posted, all the time. Now, the duplicate links will get posted in completely different stories, going forward!
Google had no need for Postini. Google's own spam filtering in Gmail is pretty good. Probably as best as spam filtering could be, under the circumstances. So that's one elephant in the room.
The other elephant in the room is Microsoft, with Hotmail, or Office 365, or whatever it's called these days. I don't have any firsthand exposure to that service, but from what I hear its built-in spam filtering is also fairly good.
Big email providers like that have no need to use an external, third party spam filtering service, since they have the technology, and the scale, to implement it in house. Organizations that outsource their email service to these elephants get spam filtering as part of their service and, again, have little need for a third party service.
About the only likely market for third party spam filtering services would be small to mid-range ISPs or organizations that want to run their E-mail in house. They wouldn't typically have the in-house technology to implement spam filtering, and would rely on a third party. Seems like a fairly small market to me, and with E-mail generally on a slow, steady decline there doesn't seem to be a lot of market opportunities here, for third party spam filtering services.
And how exactly did you determine the state of their mind, and what they do or do not know?
"Gee, all of a sudden my mail server acquires this mysterious configuration setting that rejects mail from all IP addresses on this particular blacklist. I have absolutely no idea where it came from..."
You call it "vigilantism", I call it free speech.
My (strong) bet is that, if you are using any kind of blacklisting software you don't really know who are you blocking and why.
So, you think you know more about someone who employs blacklisting, then they themselves. There's a word for that too. Actually two words: "arrogant elitism". You think you're smarter than everyone else, and that you know more about blacklists then the individual organizations who use them. That is, of course, a height of arrogance.
No, I'm afraid you're not smarter than everyone else. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Of course yes, why the hell go throw the worries of having a legal system and legal forces to enact it when we can have some random vigilante telling apart what can and cannot be done.
This phenomenon is called "free speech", perhaps you've heard of it. Anyone is free to say, on their web site, whether a particular sender's email should be accepted or rejected, and why. And it goes without saying that everyone else is free to either agree, or disagree and continue to use their own internal policy for email acceptance or rejectance.
I have found that these cries of vigilantism tend to come from those who have a peculiar belief that these so-called vigilantes have somehow hacked into million of email servers worldwide, hijacked them, and reconfigured them to reject email from the targets of those vigilantes' wrath. This is, of course, utter horseshit. The individual owners and operators of all those millions of email servers have specifically and intentionally configured their mail servers to follow the recommended mail acceptance policy of their chosen third-party blacklist. Nobody held a gun to their head, and forced them to do so. They own their email servers. They pay their electricity and bandwidth bills, and they have every right to configure them in whatever way makes them happy.
And the so-called "legal system" is 100% behind them. Fortunately, at least in the Western world, private property rights still enjoy 100% backing of the legal system. I have never read of any legal decision, that survived an appeal, which forced the owner of the email server to accept or reject email from anyone they wish, for whatever reason pleases them, and on whatever it was based on. Quite the opposite -- there's actually established case law that determined that privately-owned Internet providers are free to blacklist anyone, and for any reason, which includes third-party blacklists, which I'll be happy to cite.
That is the cold, hard truth: nobody has a civil right to email anyone, and every other privately-owned email server operator is free to refuse to accept email from anyone, for any reason. Whether it was due to their own decision, or by delegating this decision to a third-party blacklist. That delegation, after all, is still their own decision to make. Like I said, it is their email server, and they have full control of it. And it they decide to delegate some control over their email server to a third party, they are 100% within their rights to do so. And neither you, nor any other spamming parasite, can do anything about it.
Bet a hundred quatloos that this so-called "ISP" are the malware peddlers themselves. Either that, or they know fully well who their customers are, and they interpret Cisco's communications as nothing more than a request to shut down a well paying customer.
This is not a unique phenomenon. This is a fairly common reaction to abuse and spam complaints. You want us to shut down a paying customer? Why would we want to do that?
The key to effectively deal with network abuse is to make the responsible party understand that it's in their best interest to do that. Otherwise they stand to lose more than they are profiting from network abuse. As long as effective public email blacklist exist, network providers will have to reluctantly terminate their spambags, else their entire network gets blacklisted and they lose more, as their other, non-spamming pissed off customers flee to other providers, in order to be able to send mail.
The same thing here. Presuming that this is a bone-fide provider, and not a sock puppet for the malware peddlers, the appropriate step of action is to escalate to their upstream, and attempt to get their cooperation, and have them agree to terminate the circuit to their rogue downstream provider, unless they get rid of the spamware peddlers. And keep escalating upstream, as far as necessary. Now, we're talking Cisco here, right? Well, it shouldn't take long before Cisco ends up talking to someone that uses their hardware in their core business. At this point, it's now going to be up to Cisco to put up and shut up, and inform their customer that unless this is dealt with, they will respectfully decline to renew their own customer's support contracts.
Could this sequence of events actually come to fruition? Extremely unlikely, but this is the only way to effectively deal with network abuse.
"How many teamsters does it take to screw in a light bulb?" "FIFTEEN!! YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT?"