Log in

No account? Create an account


Моя гипотеза о вселенной

Jul. 6th, 2015 | 10:28 pm
posted by: rusideya3000 in _discussion

Оригинал взят у rusideya3000 в Моя гипотеза о вселенной

Link | Leave a comment | Share


Anyone there?

Nov. 6th, 2013 | 09:44 pm
posted by: aj_reloaded in _discussion

Lets be friends.

Link | Leave a comment | Share


Minimum Wage = Fewer Jobs

May. 6th, 2013 | 11:30 am
posted by: vnsplshr in _discussion

Question 1:

So, the MN small business owner with enough cash for two $7.25/hr. unskilled teenage workers at his shop gets told he now must pay $9.50/hr. He decides to get by with one $9.50/hr. unskilled teenage worker. How has the minimum wage hike helped the unemployed teen?

Question 2:

A MN small business is in the habit of hiring people at the $7.25 minimum wage. After 9 months of proven work and acquiring skills, the owner has enough cash to offer a raise to $8.50. After a year and a half, some workers get a further bump to $9.50, since their skill and output allows the boss to afford it. Everyone at the job understands that sound work and output, over time, bumps you up the levels. Now, MN tells the business owner that his lowest level unskilled workers must get what he used to pay his most experienced help. How should he address the situation if his payroll is held at the same level by the economy?

Link | Leave a comment {6} | Share



Nov. 20th, 2012 | 04:01 pm
posted by: vnsplshr in _discussion

A local shop owner posted a mini rant on what he called showrooming. He said that people come into his shop, wander the sales floor shopping, when what he really says they're doing is photographing his wares with their phones, to buy online for less.

He calls these people "dishonest, stupid and short-sighted."

Is it?

I can see that it's short-sighted, if people wish local Mom & Pop shops to survive.

I can see that he thinks they're stupid.

Is it all of these things, though?

Link | Leave a comment {1} | Share


(no subject)

Feb. 9th, 2012 | 05:04 pm
posted by: mind_fuch in _discussion

Is beauty a privilege?

Link | Leave a comment {4} | Share


(no subject)

Oct. 28th, 2011 | 10:28 am
posted by: root_fu in _discussion

americas economic animal farm..Collapse )

Link | Leave a comment {1} | Share


(no subject)

Nov. 9th, 2011 | 11:44 pm
posted by: cornered_buddah in _discussion


Banks sucking it hard and long.

It's November: the protests are heating up for a long, cold winter. It's not so cold in a crowd, though.

Link | Leave a comment {1} | Share


At what point is it acceptable to limit speech?

Nov. 20th, 2011 | 04:21 am
posted by: mayorbrotherdan in _discussion

In my home town there is a small group of activists that have been trying to get people to boycott Israel. They have set up protests outside of grocery stores that cary Israeli made products. They have also protested outside of synagogues. 

Recently a former member of this group (former because the other members consider his messages to be too extreme and detrimental to the goals of their cause) attempted to pay for a boycott Israel advertisement to be displayed on the side of city buses. This is a link to the advertisement:


The proposed add says: "Boycott Israel, Boycott Apartheid"
There is also a poorly drawn cartoonish image of a spider with a skull for its head, holding in its hands bones.

The ad was rejected by the government body that oversees the public buses. They justified banning the ad because they have a policy against accepting adds that "Defames or is likely to hold up to scorn or ridicule a person or group of persons."

I guess in a certain light its pretty obvious to see that this ad defames Israel, and by extension Israelis, by the very fact that it calls for a boycott against Israel. But perhaps you could go a step further and argue that the image is not dissimilar to images that were used by Nazis to drive public opinion against Jews in 1930s Germany, and thus constitutes defamation of Jews in general.

Seeing the arguments that people have been getting into over this incident, typical pro and anti Israel propaganda notwithstanding, I got to thinking about what kinds of speech are acceptable in the public sphere and in the advertising sphere as well. When should speech be curtailed? Is defamation enough of a reason to prevent someone from saying something? At what point is it OK to censor speech? Should there be different standards for printed media and spoken media? Is it OK to have special rules for advertisements that are different for speech in other media? Should government entities be given discretion to decide when a particular image or phrase amounts to defamation given that politics can heavily influence someone's opinion, and that such authority could potentially be used to stifle political speech of political opponents?

Link | Leave a comment {5} | Share


(no subject)

Oct. 27th, 2011 | 02:13 pm
posted by: cornered_buddah in _discussion

Are you following the Occupy Movement(s) presently? Do you know what their stated goals are?

Have your opinions about the occupy movement changed since they've begun? How so?

For myself, I've been in awe over just how far things have gone and impressed with the resolve of people and the resiliency of the movement keeping itself non-violent and coherent. The longer this goes on, the more solidarity people seem to be building over differences like race, age, religion, and the like.

I'm holding on to my hope that this ends well, though the government agencies opposing these movements are beginning to get a bit more violent. Unfortunately (for the goals of disrupting the movement) this will only foster more sympathy and support for the movement.

Winter is coming, yes. But winter coming will likely be a bigger problem for the police officers than the protesters: they get paid the same in rain or snow and, from what I've seen in the myriad of videos I've been watching, they've already begun showing signs of stress at their role in the matter.

I vote the changes requested by protesters will be met. I vote, change will come.

What say you?

Link | Leave a comment {7} | Share


(no subject)

Oct. 26th, 2011 | 10:31 pm
posted by: cornered_buddah in _discussion

"To Serve and Protect", a familiar phrase in the English-speaking world.

The practice of this phrase is debatable.

On the topic of police officers returning to the "serving" side of their stated-purpose, in hopes that it will amplify the "protect" side: I've got some minor solutions I'd like to ask you to comment on.

(1) Make cops carry out monthly non-police tasks in plain-clothes or a non-police uniform (no badge, no gun, no ability to claim being a cop in any way) as part of required salaried labor.
-Some examples of what I mean:picking up trash at parks, helping kids cross the street during school-hours, coaching teams, volunteering more generally, being parking-meter faeries (saving people from paying for over-due parking situations).

(2) Install speed-recorders in police cars. Ever seen a cop speeding? Ya, me too.

Link | Leave a comment {2} | Share