You mean things that are either essential parts of AD and can be assumed to be implemented, or things which were specifically called out in TFS as being supported? Granted: saying they support it is not the same as actually supporting it. But unless you've already installed and tested this thing, it's a bit early to be calling bullshit on their claims.
I'd still wait 1/2 a year to put it into a test environment...
Why? Isn't the whole point of a test environment to find out if something has issues? I think that interested parties should put it into a test environment immediately, cause that's why they have a test environment. But yes, wait some time to put it into production.
I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but cloud-based services complement traditional computing environments, they do not replace them. If you're in certain situations (e.g., a small business with only 10 employees), the cloud can indeed be your entire IT infrastructure... but that won't work for everyone. Different needs for different organizations.
If you're talking about "harm to startups", you implicitly are already talking about the owner(s), rather than the employees, as they are the one(s) with the above-average stake in it. And really, if you are an employee only with no ownership of the company, you never had an expectation that you'd get a cut in the cash, regardless of what happened, unless you were working at one of the very rare companies which split the profits with employees (and I mean a real cut, not a nominal pittance). And if you are working at one of those companies, they will probably see to it that everyone profits from the buyout anyway.
I can honestly think of no likely real world scenario where the employee would a) have a reasonable expectation that, despite not having ownership, they would see some of that profit, and b) not see some of the profit that comes about as the result of a buyout.
I have a smartphone, and only 450 minutes. There are, in fact, people who don't talk on the phone enough to justify the cost of unlimited minutes, but still want the connectivity of a smartphone.
I don't doubt that, but the point is that the company doesn't have to (unlike if you cut their revenues so much they were actually taking a loss). If they choose to do that, the blame rests with them and not with whatever caused the loss in profits.
Fining 10% of profits does not in and of itself cost jobs, as those are profits - therefore, the jobs can still be kept without causing loss to the company. So if Apple decides to fire people just to reinflate profits, I wouldn't exactly blame a court judgement for that.
Yeah, but those statements have only happened in the last few months (6 months or so). Given the lead time on game development, you can't reasonably expect fruit from any efforts starting then for at least another year or two.
I'd love to know what kind of upgrades you have in mind that a $20,000 budget for tech is "modest". In my book, that kind of budget, devoted solely to tech upgrades, is enormous.
I think anyone with half a brain can figure that part out; the trickier question is what form of more money is the most effective. Just giving everyone a one-time, unconditional raise will make them happy for a while, but the slackers won't be any more motivated by it, and eventually the happiness will wear off to boot. So you need to structure the monetary rewards in some way that gives people the incentive to work to earn those rewards.
I think Steam was broken some last night. When I got the game installed, I couldn't connect to a friend nor could he connect to me. I was about to try putting my PC in the DMZ, when my friend tried restarting Steam and it suddenly worked.
It isn't companies's jobs to pay workers "fairly".
Bullshit. It is the job of everyone in a civilized society (companies included) to act in an ethical fashion. This includes not abusing the imbalance of power in an employer-employee relationship to push down wages, as almost all companies do. In other words, it includes paying employees fairly even though they don't (strictly speaking) have to.
Nor do they have the resources to do so since more compensation is always "fairer" than less. "Fairness" here is just another kind of greed.
Also bullshit. Companies don't necessarily have the resources to give everyone a big fat raise, but they often have the resources to do more than they are. Real example: my sister works for a manufacturing company that does profit sharing. They spread 5% (an incredible pittance) of the profits out amongst the entire employee base. Each employee sees a ridiculously small sum from this, naturally. The company could easily increase the share of the profits - even at only 20% of the profit shared the amount is less like an insult and more like an incentive to do better, and lots of money is still left for the ownership. Not to mention that this is profit that's being divided - they could divide as much as 100% of the profit for the employees, and they would, by definition, have the resources to do it.
Nor is there a shred of truth to your statement that "fairness" is another kind of greed. People that ask for fair treatment aren't asking for a fucking $100,000/year salary plus exorbitant benefits to push a button on the factory line. They're asking for more than the lowest possible amount the company can get away with paying them. It's not a lot to ask, considering how much many companies abuse their employees.
Right, because companies totally can't afford to compensate their workers more fairly. Apple would certainly go out of business if they had to pay a reasonable wage for the labor they use!
Come on, man. One can go too far in the direction of protecting employees' interests, but that isn't what's going on here. These decisions are driven by pure greed, nothing more or less.
Already happened
No
Yes
No
Google, maybe? Not really sure, but probably no. Most companies are run by sociopaths who don't give a damn about any cost that doesn't go on the expense sheet.
You mean that manufactured controversy where a bunch of oversensitive idiots got worked up about something that was in no way offensive? Yeah man, let's all boycott PA because of that.
PA had exactly the right response to those idiots who complained about the comic with the dickwolves: made fun of them for being so ridiculous as to read into the thing some kind of endorsement of rape. If you're that stupid, you deserve to be made fun of by every person around who's not a halfwit.
I'll be the last to deny the health benefits of pasteurization. But, as I grew up on a dairy farm, we drank raw milk all the time (cause it would be kind of dumb to go buy milk at the store when you have a large supply at your home). Having grown up on that stuff, I cannot stand the taste of pasteurized milk. There is a very significant difference in flavor between the two, and the pasteurized stuff literally makes me gag. When I was a kid I almost made myself throw up trying to force myself to drink the stuff they gave us at school.
So yeah, pasteurization has some great benefits, but there's also a perfectly legitimate reason for people to want to have raw milk. Why shouldn't we permit those who prefer their milk that way to be able to obtain it?
I don't know that I could call this Obama's hobby, since the video embedded in TFA says that it's the chefs, not the man himself, brewing the beer. It's simply something he encourages.
Both mainstream parties are guilty of a great deal of mudslinging and general douchebaggery towards the other. While what you say is unacceptable, it's also not new or only a one-way street. Calling out only one side is hardly fair.
The cell phone location, by itself, instills no doubt whatsoever in my mind because it proves nothing by itself. As I keep saying, only other evidence can instill that doubt. And your statement of "no matter how unlikely" is untrue. That's why the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "beyond any doubt".
If one starts from a blank slate, the defense has to prove nothing. But assuming that sufficiently good evidence has been presented by the prosecution, the burden is back on the defense. If they can't provide something which refutes the prosecution's case, then they have failed to instill doubt, and the cell phone isn't close to what is needed for that.
But in that case, the reasonable explanation is all that is needed. The cell phone can't stand on its own, it needs something to back it up. And if you have the something to back it up, you don't need the cell phone evidence too. So the phone is either not enough, or superfluous.
You're just playing with semantics. If you mentally rewrite what I said to be about how the cell phone does not raise a reasonable doubt, my point doesn't change at all. It's evidence that cannot be relied upon except in the presence of other evidence, and the presence of that other evidence would render the cell phone evidence needless.
I know the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" here, but what I raised is a reasonable doubt. It's the owner's phone, so obviously it would have prints all over it. That doesn't really help. And it's trivial for any criminal with half a brain to simply leave their phone at home, so it's extremely reasonable to doubt the phone's location as proof of the owner's location.
The phone can be used as corroborating evidence to back up evidence that already shows the person was at home (or wherever), but it's useless by itself. And if you have the other evidence, you hardly need to know where the phone was. So in either case, the phone's location is kind of a moot point.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean things that are either essential parts of AD and can be assumed to be implemented, or things which were specifically called out in TFS as being supported? Granted: saying they support it is not the same as actually supporting it. But unless you've already installed and tested this thing, it's a bit early to be calling bullshit on their claims.
I'd still wait 1/2 a year to put it into a test environment...
Why? Isn't the whole point of a test environment to find out if something has issues? I think that interested parties should put it into a test environment immediately, cause that's why they have a test environment. But yes, wait some time to put it into production.
Uh-huh. Right...
I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but cloud-based services complement traditional computing environments, they do not replace them. If you're in certain situations (e.g., a small business with only 10 employees), the cloud can indeed be your entire IT infrastructure... but that won't work for everyone. Different needs for different organizations.
If you're talking about "harm to startups", you implicitly are already talking about the owner(s), rather than the employees, as they are the one(s) with the above-average stake in it. And really, if you are an employee only with no ownership of the company, you never had an expectation that you'd get a cut in the cash, regardless of what happened, unless you were working at one of the very rare companies which split the profits with employees (and I mean a real cut, not a nominal pittance). And if you are working at one of those companies, they will probably see to it that everyone profits from the buyout anyway.
I can honestly think of no likely real world scenario where the employee would a) have a reasonable expectation that, despite not having ownership, they would see some of that profit, and b) not see some of the profit that comes about as the result of a buyout.
No Ferengi would bother with it. They don't care about gold, merely the latinum that gold can act as an enclosure for.
I have a smartphone, and only 450 minutes. There are, in fact, people who don't talk on the phone enough to justify the cost of unlimited minutes, but still want the connectivity of a smartphone.
I don't doubt that, but the point is that the company doesn't have to (unlike if you cut their revenues so much they were actually taking a loss). If they choose to do that, the blame rests with them and not with whatever caused the loss in profits.
Fining 10% of profits does not in and of itself cost jobs, as those are profits - therefore, the jobs can still be kept without causing loss to the company. So if Apple decides to fire people just to reinflate profits, I wouldn't exactly blame a court judgement for that.
Yeah, but those statements have only happened in the last few months (6 months or so). Given the lead time on game development, you can't reasonably expect fruit from any efforts starting then for at least another year or two.
O.o
I'd love to know what kind of upgrades you have in mind that a $20,000 budget for tech is "modest". In my book, that kind of budget, devoted solely to tech upgrades, is enormous.
I think anyone with half a brain can figure that part out; the trickier question is what form of more money is the most effective. Just giving everyone a one-time, unconditional raise will make them happy for a while, but the slackers won't be any more motivated by it, and eventually the happiness will wear off to boot. So you need to structure the monetary rewards in some way that gives people the incentive to work to earn those rewards.
I think Steam was broken some last night. When I got the game installed, I couldn't connect to a friend nor could he connect to me. I was about to try putting my PC in the DMZ, when my friend tried restarting Steam and it suddenly worked.
I just hear a bunch of bullshit about "fairness", "ethics", "civilized society", etc.
Ah, so you're a sociopath. Got it. I'll stop trying to talk to you about treating people right, then.
It isn't companies's jobs to pay workers "fairly".
Bullshit. It is the job of everyone in a civilized society (companies included) to act in an ethical fashion. This includes not abusing the imbalance of power in an employer-employee relationship to push down wages, as almost all companies do. In other words, it includes paying employees fairly even though they don't (strictly speaking) have to.
Nor do they have the resources to do so since more compensation is always "fairer" than less. "Fairness" here is just another kind of greed.
Also bullshit. Companies don't necessarily have the resources to give everyone a big fat raise, but they often have the resources to do more than they are. Real example: my sister works for a manufacturing company that does profit sharing. They spread 5% (an incredible pittance) of the profits out amongst the entire employee base. Each employee sees a ridiculously small sum from this, naturally. The company could easily increase the share of the profits - even at only 20% of the profit shared the amount is less like an insult and more like an incentive to do better, and lots of money is still left for the ownership. Not to mention that this is profit that's being divided - they could divide as much as 100% of the profit for the employees, and they would, by definition, have the resources to do it.
Nor is there a shred of truth to your statement that "fairness" is another kind of greed. People that ask for fair treatment aren't asking for a fucking $100,000/year salary plus exorbitant benefits to push a button on the factory line. They're asking for more than the lowest possible amount the company can get away with paying them. It's not a lot to ask, considering how much many companies abuse their employees.
Right, because companies totally can't afford to compensate their workers more fairly. Apple would certainly go out of business if they had to pay a reasonable wage for the labor they use!
Come on, man. One can go too far in the direction of protecting employees' interests, but that isn't what's going on here. These decisions are driven by pure greed, nothing more or less.
Already happened
No
Yes
No
Google, maybe? Not really sure, but probably no. Most companies are run by sociopaths who don't give a damn about any cost that doesn't go on the expense sheet.
You mean that manufactured controversy where a bunch of oversensitive idiots got worked up about something that was in no way offensive? Yeah man, let's all boycott PA because of that.
PA had exactly the right response to those idiots who complained about the comic with the dickwolves: made fun of them for being so ridiculous as to read into the thing some kind of endorsement of rape. If you're that stupid, you deserve to be made fun of by every person around who's not a halfwit.
I'll be the last to deny the health benefits of pasteurization. But, as I grew up on a dairy farm, we drank raw milk all the time (cause it would be kind of dumb to go buy milk at the store when you have a large supply at your home). Having grown up on that stuff, I cannot stand the taste of pasteurized milk. There is a very significant difference in flavor between the two, and the pasteurized stuff literally makes me gag. When I was a kid I almost made myself throw up trying to force myself to drink the stuff they gave us at school.
So yeah, pasteurization has some great benefits, but there's also a perfectly legitimate reason for people to want to have raw milk. Why shouldn't we permit those who prefer their milk that way to be able to obtain it?
I don't know that I could call this Obama's hobby, since the video embedded in TFA says that it's the chefs, not the man himself, brewing the beer. It's simply something he encourages.
Both mainstream parties are guilty of a great deal of mudslinging and general douchebaggery towards the other. While what you say is unacceptable, it's also not new or only a one-way street. Calling out only one side is hardly fair.
The cell phone location, by itself, instills no doubt whatsoever in my mind because it proves nothing by itself. As I keep saying, only other evidence can instill that doubt. And your statement of "no matter how unlikely" is untrue. That's why the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "beyond any doubt".
If one starts from a blank slate, the defense has to prove nothing. But assuming that sufficiently good evidence has been presented by the prosecution, the burden is back on the defense. If they can't provide something which refutes the prosecution's case, then they have failed to instill doubt, and the cell phone isn't close to what is needed for that.
But in that case, the reasonable explanation is all that is needed. The cell phone can't stand on its own, it needs something to back it up. And if you have the something to back it up, you don't need the cell phone evidence too. So the phone is either not enough, or superfluous.
Strawman. I never said otherwise.
You're just playing with semantics. If you mentally rewrite what I said to be about how the cell phone does not raise a reasonable doubt, my point doesn't change at all. It's evidence that cannot be relied upon except in the presence of other evidence, and the presence of that other evidence would render the cell phone evidence needless.
I know the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" here, but what I raised is a reasonable doubt. It's the owner's phone, so obviously it would have prints all over it. That doesn't really help. And it's trivial for any criminal with half a brain to simply leave their phone at home, so it's extremely reasonable to doubt the phone's location as proof of the owner's location.
The phone can be used as corroborating evidence to back up evidence that already shows the person was at home (or wherever), but it's useless by itself. And if you have the other evidence, you hardly need to know where the phone was. So in either case, the phone's location is kind of a moot point.