I don't think anybody would object to you paying a few extra bucks each year to a charity that produced Canadian content if you think that makes your society richer and more interesting.
But do you really think Canadian content would die if Canadians weren't forced to pay for it? If not, why do you think it needs to be funded by taxes? If yes, doesn't it mean most of you don't think it's a worthwhile investment in your society?
Maybe I'm just lame with your annoying legal policies, but I fail to see how materially, a tax shouldn't be applied on internet purchases vs. store-fronts. In fact, by not supporting online taxation, your punishing local retailers that are legally obligated to charge you.
Local retailers receive a bunch of services from the local and state governments: police protection, roads, etc. Internet retailers do not.
Besides, it's reasonable for a local retailer to support one taxing jurisdiction. It isn't reasonable for an internet retailer to support thousands of us.
In headlines, "?" implies that something is a serious question, whose answer is likely to be yes. One that makes it worth spending the time to read the article.
Imagine the headline said "Does Obama Smoke Crack?" and the article had a bunch of stuff about the president, with a last paragraph saying: "There is absolutely no reason to thing that President Obama has ever smoked crack."
No, it's the media that says they fight badly. If you ask them (you can, they're online), they'll say they are winning and give examples and statistics.
Go to bar.baen.com, for example, register, and ask this question in KratsKeller or Ringo's Tavern.
You can keep polishing your rifle while dreaming about storming the capital building, but frankly with their 3 million military personnel I doubt you'll have them quaking in their boots.
True. It's the loyalties of those 3 million military personnel, and recently released veterans, that are the ultimate limit to the power of our government.
Of course, it helps that the recently released veterans do have rifles. A lot of them also know exactly how the US military fights an insurgency.
I don't like unions, but in this they are blameless. IBM doesn't really have a union - it has a small group that wants to unionize it, and so far hasn't met with much success.
Management is openly admitting that their present American workforce has the skills they need; it is just a question of cheap labor. This is not the time for a company to be picking this sort of fight.
Should they let a real Indian company win the business on cheaper contract costs, and then lay off those people?
Nobody likes it when companies cut expenses, but everybody likes to buy stuff for cheap.
There really is a point at which, no matter what your personal opinion on the matter is, unless you can prove a personal stake in the matter, you should just let it go
I agree that this point exists, and my child rearing techniques could land me in jail in Germany. However, just because a point exists doesn't mean that there aren't things beyond it.
To take another thing, what about slavery? Did people in the North have a personal stake in the matter? If not, what gave them the right to force abolition?
It may be nice to think that a fertilized egg is a legal entity that has rights, but most people forget that legal entities also have responsibilities that prohibit actions that a fertilized egg must take in order to further life.
Adults have responsibilities. Kids do not. My three year old cannot be help legally responsible for his actions. Does this mean he is not a legal entity, entitled to protection of the law?
He doesn't have to use my wife and me for support, but he does have to use somebody. He is unlikely to survive without an adult taking care of him.
I'd like to think that one statement I heard about abortion would become our morality on it. That they should be allowed, and rarely used.
If they are allowed, why should they be used only rarely? Who gets to decide if a particular situation merits it? If it's the pregnant woman, then isn't that identical to the situation today when they are not rare?
Respect is for your job skills, such as being able to write a program that fixes PNG. How easy it might be technically is irrelevant - they point is that you fixed the problem for the non-geeks. Like is for social skills. For example, being the kind of person people ask for help for problems that already have a solution because it's not very good.
You need both to work as part of a team, which is what businesses usually need.
I'm a bit of a generalist, with skills ranging from technical support to systems administration to tower climbing to cable-pulling monkey to systems integrator and troubleshooter supreme,
Being a generalist, the kind you can just hand a problem off to and it gets solved, is incredibly valuable. Hopefully your personal and psychological issues will get better, so you'll be a nicer person to be around.
Looks like you are being very valuable - that's the reason they tell it to you. Smart employers don't care about showing up on time nearly as much as they do about the job getting done.
Being good includes the ability to handle office politics successfully. Jobs that don't require office politics are incredibly rare.
If you can't find anybody in your old company that likes you, you probably need to work on your social skills. It's one of the things employers need to make sure the job gets done.
"Match skills and resources with our client needs" doesn't mean layoffs...its a feature!
Actually, IBM claims that it's not an extraordinary event - in the course of normal business, every quarter they lay off some people with useless skills and hire others with useful ones.
They didn't file an extraordinary activity report with the SEC because a certain level of layoffs is ordinary in an organization that size.
Because then I could argue that" Yes, they may be experimenting on their own kids but at least they did not abort them.
Where do you draw the line?
Hard to say, which is precisely why I have a problem with abortion. At some point, between conception and the age of legal majority, we have a legally protected person. But birth seems arbitrary.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think anybody would object to you paying a few extra bucks each year to a charity that produced Canadian content if you think that makes your society richer and more interesting.
But do you really think Canadian content would die if Canadians weren't forced to pay for it? If not, why do you think it needs to be funded by taxes? If yes, doesn't it mean most of you don't think it's a worthwhile investment in your society?
Maybe I'm just lame with your annoying legal policies, but I fail to see how materially, a tax shouldn't be applied on internet purchases vs. store-fronts. In fact, by not supporting online taxation, your punishing local retailers that are legally obligated to charge you.
Local retailers receive a bunch of services from the local and state governments: police protection, roads, etc. Internet retailers do not.
Besides, it's reasonable for a local retailer to support one taxing jurisdiction. It isn't reasonable for an internet retailer to support thousands of us.
You're right - I should have used "summary" instead of "article", since the headline was the headline for the slashdot summary.
In headlines, "?" implies that something is a serious question, whose answer is likely to be yes. One that makes it worth spending the time to read the article.
Imagine the headline said "Does Obama Smoke Crack?" and the article had a bunch of stuff about the president, with a last paragraph saying: "There is absolutely no reason to thing that President Obama has ever smoked crack."
Otherwise, some larger system would be more efficient.
More energy efficient, but less time efficient. It depends on the relative value of people's time vs. energy.
No, it's the media that says they fight badly. If you ask them (you can, they're online), they'll say they are winning and give examples and statistics.
Go to bar.baen.com, for example, register, and ask this question in KratsKeller or Ringo's Tavern.
Considering the guys we want to revolt against hold the power to decide to ignore our complaints, what else is left beyond the use of force?
Immigrate. It's safer, easier, and eventually leaves a government without much of its beloved milking cows (oops, I meant to write "tax base").
You can keep polishing your rifle while dreaming about storming the capital building, but frankly with their 3 million military personnel I doubt you'll have them quaking in their boots.
True. It's the loyalties of those 3 million military personnel, and recently released veterans, that are the ultimate limit to the power of our government.
Of course, it helps that the recently released veterans do have rifles. A lot of them also know exactly how the US military fights an insurgency.
There's a group that wants to be the union for IBM. They have very few members, and don't do collective bargaining in any of the major offices.
I don't like unions, but in this they are blameless. IBM doesn't really have a union - it has a small group that wants to unionize it, and so far hasn't met with much success.
Management is openly admitting that their present American workforce has the skills they need; it is just a question of cheap labor. This is not the time for a company to be picking this sort of fight.
Should they let a real Indian company win the business on cheaper contract costs, and then lay off those people?
Nobody likes it when companies cut expenses, but everybody likes to buy stuff for cheap.
Go into sales. Being likable is a very important job skill there.
The third will generally 9and rightly) get you arrested on felony charges everywhere;
If you're lucky. Threatening somebody with a weapon isn't a capital crime. But shooting you on the spot is perfectly legal and rightly so.
If you threaten my life, I have a right to make you stop. If you end up dead, well, that's too bad. At least that's the law in Texas.
There really is a point at which, no matter what your personal opinion on the matter is, unless you can prove a personal stake in the matter, you should just let it go
I agree that this point exists, and my child rearing techniques could land me in jail in Germany. However, just because a point exists doesn't mean that there aren't things beyond it.
To take another thing, what about slavery? Did people in the North have a personal stake in the matter? If not, what gave them the right to force abolition?
It may be nice to think that a fertilized egg is a legal entity that has rights, but most people forget that legal entities also have responsibilities that prohibit actions that a fertilized egg must take in order to further life.
Adults have responsibilities. Kids do not. My three year old cannot be help legally responsible for his actions. Does this mean he is not a legal entity, entitled to protection of the law?
He doesn't have to use my wife and me for support, but he does have to use somebody. He is unlikely to survive without an adult taking care of him.
I'd like to think that one statement I heard about abortion would become our morality on it. That they should be allowed, and rarely used.
If they are allowed, why should they be used only rarely? Who gets to decide if a particular situation merits it? If it's the pregnant woman, then isn't that identical to the situation today when they are not rare?
Respect is for your job skills, such as being able to write a program that fixes PNG. How easy it might be technically is irrelevant - they point is that you fixed the problem for the non-geeks. Like is for social skills. For example, being the kind of person people ask for help for problems that already have a solution because it's not very good.
You need both to work as part of a team, which is what businesses usually need.
the problem is, all the US schools seem to turn out is more code monkeys.
Schools will always turn out code monkeys. You can't learn innovation and leadership in the classroom - you have to learn them by applying them.
I'm a bit of a generalist, with skills ranging from technical support to systems administration to tower climbing to cable-pulling monkey to systems integrator and troubleshooter supreme,
Being a generalist, the kind you can just hand a problem off to and it gets solved, is incredibly valuable. Hopefully your personal and psychological issues will get better, so you'll be a nicer person to be around.
Looks like you are being very valuable - that's the reason they tell it to you. Smart employers don't care about showing up on time nearly as much as they do about the job getting done.
Being good includes the ability to handle office politics successfully. Jobs that don't require office politics are incredibly rare.
If you can't find anybody in your old company that likes you, you probably need to work on your social skills. It's one of the things employers need to make sure the job gets done.
Not that smart. If I see too many people around me fired, I'll look for a new job before you get around to firing me.
If I'm good, and you want to keep me - I'll find another job.
We're on hiring freeze despite a sizable number of openings posted.
Good point. Since people use job openings to judge the health of a company, it's possible to use it to send a misleading signal to the stock market.
IBM might as well shuffle independent contractors around.
Businesses would love to do that - if they thought they'd have the people they need, with the skills they need, regardless.
"Match skills and resources with our client needs" doesn't mean layoffs...its a feature!
Actually, IBM claims that it's not an extraordinary event - in the course of normal business, every quarter they lay off some people with useless skills and hire others with useful ones.
They didn't file an extraordinary activity report with the SEC because a certain level of layoffs is ordinary in an organization that size.
Because then I could argue that" Yes, they may be experimenting on their own kids but at least they did not abort them.
Where do you draw the line?
Hard to say, which is precisely why I have a problem with abortion. At some point, between conception and the age of legal majority, we have a legally protected person. But birth seems arbitrary.
If it's a matter of some guy creating human-animal hybrids on his own personal island, I don't see that it's anyone else's business.
What if it's a couple torturing or killing their own kids?