News Stories

[ganbaru]

Manufacturing can thrive but struggles for respect
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7BD1WR20111214

[Ithekro]

I wonder about that sometimes. Word origins. "Lift" would be the act of raising something, were as an "elevator" is something that elevates something else (Or something that lifts something as oppose to the act of lifting). So, in say Canada, wouldn't it be more grammatically proper to call it a "Lifter"? The wonderance is which was used first and why? Then when did it change in some places and not others?

On the other hand it might just be the difference between the Germanic and the Latin origins of things again. We can blame the Anglo-Saxons for one and the Normans for the other. Otherwise it would be Celtic based instead of the odd Germanic-Romantic cross language it is today (mostly Germanic...just with bits and pieces thrown in left over from 1066).

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Manufacturing can thrive but struggles for respect
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7BD1WR20111214

Here is an interesting commentary worth reading :

This shows exactly where the problems are: the companies are unwilling to invest in their employees. The problem is the management. This is the American way: you have someone else spend money training people, and then you steal them. Companies constantly complain about being unable to find employees to match the skill levels they need. It is because they refuse to spend money and time to train their employees. How do explain the fact that German, Japanese and Swiss economies are so successful? They invest in people, and hence they are able to produce products that we have to import. It is just that for American companies: a cost. But this article shows that it can be a hugely rewarding profit center. You just need to put intelligent people in charge of businesses, who understand their business. Human being is the most flexible machine, and used correctly can make or break a company. It shows that the problem of any business lies not with the employees but with management. Dumb people can run great businesses into the ground. What is needed is creative thinking, a vision. Which is perhaps not what our business schools teach.

IMHO, QFT.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Those are fighting words for someone seething with indignation over the creeping Americanisation of English. It wouldn't be so much a problem if it's merely a case of people gradually changing the way they use the language. It's a huge problem to me, however, when people blindly adopt speech and language mannerisms that they think is cool, without knowing — let alone understanding — the context that gave rise to those quirks.

In short, as far as I'm concerned — and from where I am — it's a lift, not an elevator.

A number of schools, especially private ones, disagree with you and call you a "Posh Queen's English Crusader". And so do a number of youths because "British" English is "old-fashioned, outdated English".

Little do we realise that bad spelling is promulgated by incessant advertising in American brands and their "modern English".

Meanwhile, on the topic of carnivore women, an androgynous male model turns heads in the Netherlands:

Male model fronts campaign for push-up bras

You are lagging behind in the development of the fashion industry. (Links NSFW)

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

IMHO, QFT.

It's not just that in America. Employee training is deemed nothing but a cost rather than an investment, and there is also the culture of expendability of people. In the US, I find that companies tend to expend their employees very easily if they are no longer deemed useful to the firm. Rather than placing them within another function and training them into it (which would save an enormous amount of money on recruiting processes), they let them go. As the article said, humans are the most flexible machines. My dad's changed jobs very frequently because of this in recent years, despite the fact he has tons more experience than most others in his industry. I was also expended pretty easily after working for Bloomberg, yet I'm being welcomed back to my old job (an english company) after leaving it so abruptly a few months ago.

[Vexx]

This shows exactly where the problems are: the companies are unwilling to invest in their employees. The problem is the management. This is the American way: you have someone else spend money training people, and then you steal them. Companies constantly complain about being unable to find employees to match the skill levels they need. It is because they refuse to spend money and time to train their employees. How do explain the fact that German, Japanese and Swiss economies are so successful? They invest in people, and hence they are able to produce products that we have to import. It is just that for American companies: a cost. But this article shows that it can be a hugely rewarding profit center. You just need to put intelligent people in charge of businesses, who understand their business. Human being is the most flexible machine, and used correctly can make or break a company. It shows that the problem of any business lies not with the employees but with management. Dumb people can run great businesses into the ground. What is needed is creative thinking, a vision. Which is perhaps not what our business schools teach.

I have been on the front line in that battle for about 15 years now. It *used* to be (even into the late 1980s) that companies would hire bright people and train them. Now, if you know "7.1" and they use "7.2", you're not even interviewed. If your job changes, they're more likely to lay you and your whole group off... and then hire from scratch a few months later with terrible results (actually happened my older son) when they could have rehired or spent that time training. Now that company is flailing... but the decision makers got their bonuses anyway.

The top tiers of businesses in the US? ... well, Dilbert's satirical view stopped being funny or extreme a decade ago -- its just reporting the reality.

[ganbaru]

Republicans try to protect military from budget cuts
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7BE02120111215

[solomon]

As far as the Military stuff goes......

Look you can argue all you want about weither we have moral basis for our exploits, that's one thing.

It's another thing if you DON'T PAY FOR IT. You'd think Republicans would stuck sucking Grover Norquists dick enough to consider raising taxes to actually FUND these exploits and keep books balanced.......but nah, there is no element of Defense spending that's wasteful AT ALL not one teeny eeny weeny bit of it, and if you cut even one penny of the Pentagon's BUDGET.

THE MUSLIMS WILL INVADE YOUR HOUSE RAPE YOU AND KILL YOU.

[DonQuigleone]

Given that 43% of the world's military spending is in the USA, I'm pretty sure there's room for making cuts without jeopardizing the US's security. They might jeopardize their position as world hegemon though...

[solomon]

Here's how this breaks down.

Me and my old college friend are talking about US state in the world.

Me; I mean you think that we can't really cut down on foriegn exploits?

Friend; If we do we won't be number 1

Culturally, I think this scares a lot of americans. It also has influenced China in it's rise, Russia and it's "asserting itself" (throwing it's weight around) abroad, and I'm sure you've heard of certain British and French wistfully dreaming of Britannia and L'Empire.

I mean I don't want to be anyone's BITCH by any means, but are Sweden and Denmark and Australia butthurt about not standing on the top of the world?

[DonQuigleone]

Well being no.1 is certainly a justifiable thing to aim to maintain. And frankly, even if the US cut it's military budget in half it would probably still be no.1. The thing is it would no longer be "hegemon", it would not have sufficient power that it could beat a coalition of other countries. It would need to rely on it's allies a whole lot more. However, I think it's inevitable that the USA will lose it's Superpower status. It happened to Britain, and it happened to the USSR. The USA isn't going to unrivalled forever. And I also think we're beginning to live in an era where Military power is not of as much value as it used to be.

Put it this way, the US doesn't really need a huge defense apparatus to ensure it's own safety, they've got Nukes for that. The military apparatus does defend US "Interests", but I think there needs to be a firm line delineated between the two. For instance it's in the US's interests to ensure a cheap Oil supply, but it doesn't really effect the US's safety one way or another.

Also, the principle of proportionality needs to also be maintained. For instance, the terrorism scares of the early 2000s certainly merited improvements in counter-terrorism operations etc., but did they really merit the invasion and occupation of an entire country? Terrorist acts are on the scale of individuals, while the invasion was on the scale of nations.

[GundamFan0083]

Christopher Hitchens is Dead

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-1...?section=world

Well, now at least he knows the truth.

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Whoa.. heh! No, you're on a completely wrong track there

Google 'herbivore men' and 'Japan' .... (edit: oh or read Solomon's post). It just has to do with men in Japan opting for a non-macho attitude, sometimes so much so they stop chasing women. Sometimes its hard not to call it a "wussy response to feminism" as women seek to take a more self-reliant place in the society.

I'm not really sure I'd consider it a response to feminism. Given what the movement is - essentially a rejection of the traditional Japanese "career oriented" manhood - I suspect that an awful lot of these guys are pretty insecure towards people who are "driven" regardless of gender. Social status ensures that - it really doesn't strike me as all that different from the insecurities possessed by your average geek in that regard.

It is, of course, entirely possible that, as in the geek world, women are the target of far more of the resulting bitterness than is actually deserved.

[Ithekro]

Deal made to avoid government shutdown
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...nment-shutdown

In all that I find this to be the most nickel and dime-y thing I've seen in a while.

A deal on a $1 trillion spending bill was reached after Republicans agreed to drop language that would have blocked President Barack Obama's liberalized rules on people who visit and send money to relatives in Cuba. But a GOP provision will stay in the bill thwarting an Obama administration rule on energy efficiency standards that critics argued would make it hard for people to purchase inexpensive incandescent light bulbs.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by solomon

As far as the Military stuff goes......

Look you can argue all you want about weither we have moral basis for our exploits, that's one thing.

It's another thing if you DON'T PAY FOR IT. You'd think Republicans would stuck sucking Grover Norquists dick enough to consider raising taxes to actually FUND these exploits and keep books balanced.......but nah, there is no element of Defense spending that's wasteful AT ALL not one teeny eeny weeny bit of it, and if you cut even one penny of the Pentagon's BUDGET.

THE MUSLIMS WILL INVADE YOUR HOUSE RAPE YOU AND KILL YOU.

Really? Really? There's already many muslims within the US borders, and I can already name a few off the top of my head. I think it's utterly ridiculous to be labelling all muslims as enemies of the west (or the US at least) and/or terrorists. A lot of muslims working in the US are contributing quite a lot to society, paying the same taxes you're paying. It's one thing to commit to counter-terrorism, but it's another to overthrow an entire nation for its sake.

Originally Posted by solomon

Here's how this breaks down.

Me and my old college friend are talking about US state in the world.

Me; I mean you think that we can't really cut down on foriegn exploits?

Friend; If we do we won't be number 1

Culturally, I think this scares a lot of americans. It also has influenced China in it's rise, Russia and it's "asserting itself" (throwing it's weight around) abroad, and I'm sure you've heard of certain British and French wistfully dreaming of Britannia and L'Empire.

I mean I don't want to be anyone's BITCH by any means, but are Sweden and Denmark and Australia butthurt about not standing on the top of the world?

As Don said, you can cut the military budget in half and still be number 1, just not on the same scale as you are. The US economy will still be on top of everyone else, and I wouldn't even doubt that it would benefit from military spending cuts because that would leave more room for businesses to make a profit (less taxes) and I even imagine less unemployment due to increased labour market. There's going to be a number of former military officers from various functions, even finance and IT, who will be looking for work after a good time in the military. Armies don't have the same influence as they one had. We're not living in feudal times anymore where military strength determined how much of an influence a lord had over his land and the lands of others. We're living in an economic era, and the economy of the US, so far, is still the strongest, especially considering it's the biggest trading partner for a sizeable amount of the world's nations.

On a final note, you can also talk about the British, but there's a pretty heavy muslim population there, particularly in London and other big cities. I'd be more worried about people for who they are and their own intentions. Just because one person is carrying nukes and happens to be muslim doesn't make every muslim an enemy.

[Ithekro]

There's already many muslims within the US borders

About 2.5 million.
There are more than twice that many Jews (for reference).

UK has about 1.7 million
Only a little over a quarter million Jews.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

About 2.5 million.
There are more than twice that many Jews (for reference).

UK has about 1.7 million
Only a little over a quarter million Jews.

Considering the total population in the US (approx 320 million) is far greater than in the UK (approx 62 million), 1.7 million is a lot relatively speaking. My point, however, is that considering there are already muslims within the US, making the argument that all muslims are terrorists is ridiculous to me. I still remember my old friend Yasser (who is Egyptian btw) telling me about his cousin. He died when the Twin Towers collapsed.

[sneaker]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

Considering the total population in the US (approx 320 million) is far greater than in the UK (approx 62 million), 1.7 million is a lot relatively speaking. My point, however, is that considering there are already muslims within the US, making the argument that all muslims are terrorists is ridiculous to me. I still remember my old friend Yasser (who is Egyptian btw) telling me about his cousin. He died when the Twin Towers collapsed.

Solomon was clearly being sarcastic, no need to become upset.

[Vexx]

I think Solomon miswrote his post a bit.... he was being sarcastic about muslims being an internal threat, the all-caps scream at the end was the noise the "omgtheyrehere!!! Moar mony fer defense!!!" monkeys make. If you review Solomon's post history, he definitely *ISN'T* anti- any religion as such.

[Ithekro]

I've known several Afghan since Middle School. Most of them came over during the Soviet invasion. I recall one in college in early 2001. Right after the Taliban started destroying historical Buddist statues he say "Well, it looks like I'm never going to be able to go home again".

[Tsuyoshi]

I do apologize to solomon. His post reminded me of a lot of other people in the US who seriously do think of muslims in such a manner.