"You can only answer "yes" or "no" to the question: "Is person eligible to work at your company ever again?"
And the difference between giving a bad reference and eligible for rehire is what exactly? Second, how would you ever prove this? Finally, there are easy ways around this-call me back if this if this is a good employee, for instance. The law is a good thing. But it is as useful as laws against age discrimination in practice....
"Why not just use a cruise control type system to limit the speed?"
Beacause in portions of the US (don't know about Canada) it is LEGAL to exceed the speed limit to pass vehicles in certain situations? Then there is a little issue about safety....
Sorry, I still view it as plagiarism. If I did this in an academic setting, I could be in trouble (assuming anybody bothered to check). If a student copied a press release in a paper and didn't cite it the teacher would have every right to flunk him. You can be expelled for this offense in every college I have attended. That is another definition of plagiarism....
Repeat after me, publishing press releases as your own work is not journalism. I know full well that is the POINT of press releases-get specific information out (often badly biased or wrong in one form or another). But "journalists" who take press releases and publish it as their own work are lazy unethical hacks who should be fired. That step alone would greatly improve journalism or at least let everyone know how much "reporting" is by press release.....
"Seriously, the Federal should not be passing laws that govern individuals or businesses anyway. That should be for the States to decide independantly."
Which is exactly why, in your opinion we have
"the inoperative, unmanagemable, and overbearing Federal that we have today."
Congress doesn't just sit around and decide "Hey, let's pass a law today" (for the most part). They do it in response to their constituents. If the states had done a good job, there would be much less incentive for the federal government to step in. One could suggest many ways to fix this, but probably not any GOOD ways on balance.
I think it roughly sums to this-you get the representation that the general electorate deserves, which is the problem.....
"How many people throughout the years have claimed to have correctly figured out the formula for Coca-Cola. It is one of the most closely guarded secrets, and Coca-Cola has stated that the supposed formulas people have come up with are not the correct ones."
But it doesn't matter. Coca-cola is mostly about marketing the product. Bring out an identical product is not a significant threat to coke. Bringing out a identical product with similar marketing and distribution could be-but then, why wouldn't someone just buy coke? It doesn't make much financial sense.
"but I for one would welcome this kind of information being given to the CDC, especially if it could help me avoid getting into the middle of a pandemic, but more importantly giving my family a contact point if I'm actually in one."
Personally, I would suggest watching the news. And a cell phone. Much more useful than relying on the government considering their recent track record dealing with a certain storm.....
All the government is likely to do is pick up the pieces. And probably make it worse by quarantining people...
What is this free market you talk about with regards to cable? There is virtually nothing free about it. After all, what good is ala carte pricing if you are getting it from what is essentially a monopoly? I would predict that you will get less channels for more money. I can program my remote to do that:)
Personally when the FCC says it wants to do something good for the consumer, I start looking for my wallet and the vaseline....
"I would rather get my news from 100 blogs of different positions than from the New York Times, The Wallstreet Journal, or any of my local papers. At least then I can pick through the crap, mix together the different points of view and come out with a fairly wellrounded understanding of things."
Well rounded? Or just lots of biased opinions based on a limited number of sets of reported facts? Pick up a paper, even the large ones, and you will notice that most of the articles are from the wire. Not reported by the paper at all. The only sections of a paper that directly reflect the staff is the local section and the editorial page. Otherwise the bias is in selecting the stories to run. Unless the bloggers have seen the news directly they are no better than the editorial page (granted, possibly the most interesting part of the paper....)
Finally, remember there is no such thing as unbiased. At best you can expect to know the bias. Harder than it sounds.
"No, the #1 reason public schools in CA are crap is because 80% of the school budget goes for ADMINISTRATION. Only 20% goes to pay teachers, supply classrooms, and keep facilities in good repair."
Umm, I think you reversed those numbers. The largest operating largest cost in any school district is salaries. And the largest number of salaried bodies tends to be teachers.....
"That, and hospitals in America will do anything in their power to save your life first, and worry about costs later."
Big fucking deal. Sure, that's great. But remember they don't have a choice in that matter. If you are bleeding to death, they'll stop the bleeding. If you have a heart attack, they will treat you. But if you need a transplant, well, you will probably be out of luck. Long term treatment, sorry. Oh, treatment so you can be a productive member of society, that will be $$$.
The later costs will probably bankrupt you.
I believe that in every basic measure, Canada has better care. We can, of course, debate those measures. It should be noted that I do not consider speed and number of specialist as better care. The US system works fine for those with good jobs or who can afford good insurance. It is broken for those without.
I think it comes down to this: Does everyone have a right to affordable basic health care? If you answer no, then the US system is great. If you answer yes, then a nationalized system is currently the best way to go.
"The US is fixing the "No one sees the price tag" problem, its called HSA's. Hundreds of companies are moving to them, I own a small business its how my employees get coverage, we save tons of money on premiums, and we save tons of money on care because we all see the full price of everything, and we can shop around."
Companies are moving to them because they save money. More correctly, they shift costs from the company to the employee. Not wrong of course but they aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts....
How about the people who can't get/afford insurance? They do exist. HSA's aren't very useful for them.
Shopping around is a bit of a joke. That's great if you have a lot of time and don't want to stay with a particular doctor or don't have specialized problems. For many people it doesn't work. Hell, ever tried to pay CASH to a doctor when you didn't have health insurance? Not only do you confuse the hell out of the staff, but you get to pay "rack" rates (no negotiation) and pay it NOW. So much for a discount for saving them the trouble of getting their money sooner and with less hassle... In short, the uninsured subsidize the insured in this country. Same with prescriptions.
Lots of people rant at nationalized health care. But it is the best solution. It removes the profit motive. It removes inefficiency. It increases the number of people in the risk pool. Granted, it does suck for people who never get ill/sick/hurt. But any insurance does.
As for the lower levels of service, I don't see it. Service sucks for 40 million plus in this country now. I don't have a problem waiting for care-hell when I had good insurance I often had to wait months for needed care. Specialized scans (as are often brought up) are overused. MRIs are used in this country because they are readily available not because they are needed in many cases. They are often the refuge of crappy doctors.
Your solution is unworkable. You cannot make the health care system into a free market. Possibly a lot freer, but not totally.
"GM the car company is going bankrrupt, they just haven't bothered to file."
"GM the credit company, otoh, is firmly in the black."
Yep, they basically sell cars at a loss to make a profit on the financing. I believe Ford is like this too. How well GMAC would do without a "captive" market though.... They seem to be so determined to be number one in sales that they are willing to drive themselves into the ground. Classic denial. It will be interesting to watch-kind of like giving a drunk the keys to a rally car....
"What happens when everyone on the team is an actual owner, and the only way you could become an actual owner is through doing a good job? Several things:....."
The things you state have everthing to do with good management. Little to nothing to do with stock ownership. Remember correlation does not equal causation. I don't know when you were an employee but it sounds like only a minority of the employees were eligible (based on current size). Even less considering they use a LOT of contractors (or craft employees as they call them).
In short, what you describe sounds like a basic employee owned company. Some are good working environments, some aren't.
"If the federal government can't help us now, then what are they there for?"
There is a difference between not being able and not wanting to. Let's face it, a lot of people lied. I'll let you figure it out.
"If the federal government didn't want to use the Corps of Engineers to protect New Orleans with levees, then why'd they tell us that they were going to?"
They did. Of course, a few were built and/or maintained poorly. Which leads to a another question-if a poorly built levy (or one that has been showing signs of potential failure was ignored by the locals) can essentially doom an entire city from a moderate to large hurricane, what good are they? More precisely, why protect non-essential things. People can be relocated to higher ground. It makes no sense to rebuild a significant portion of that city. It is roughly akin to living in a flood zone-some structures you just can't move. Others you just don't allow there. Once destroyed, you don't allow them to be rebuilt.
"But it's all done under this cloud of uncertainty, because the feds are waffling on fixing the levees."
I don't think there is any question about rebuilding the levees. It's only a few billion. Maybe a ten to 20 billion at the outside. Not much on the US Government side. But there is no sense rebuilding until you know why the levees failed and how to prevent it in the future. It is also a policy debate-how much of the area do you protect. Finally, it will take up to 20 years to build them. And until that time a Cat 5 storm can come through and wipe the city off the map. Gee, I wonder why there is uncertainty. It cannot be prevented in even the best case scenario. No one wants to spend 200 billion or so dollars and have it washed away....
The bottom line? It sucks if you lived in New Orleans. But I don't see a massive economic impact from it. That is the only thing that will encourage the rebuilding. In other words, if the loss from not rebuilding is greater than the cost of building. Finally, no one said recovery was going to be quick. Anyone who thought the city was going to be up and running in a couple of months was optimistic at best but most likely trending towards clueless....
So, if that is true, what does that imply about a certain Deity that may or may not exist....:)
Of course, that could explain a whole lot....:)
Personally, I see no reason why absolute power should corrupt absolutely. The pursuit of it, sure, but once you have it, I think you would be rather bored.
"Only in places where seat belt use is a primary crime."
Sure, but they can use virtually ANY excuse to pull you over if they see/think that you don't have it on. Oops, that car weaved a little to the left, better pull them over type of thing. The difference between a primary/seconday crime is really how convenient it is for the police to enforce it (or how much of a cover story they need...)
In other words, the difference between primary and secondary traffic infractions is rather meaningless. About as useful as the words "probable cause" related to traffic searches-if they need it or want it, they'll get it. It may bite them in the rear end later after you spend lots of money on a lawyer of course.....
"The battery carries a 100,000 mile warranty, and is designed for the life of the car."
I suspect what people really want to know is "What is the designed life?" And how much will replacements cost. Important if you buy it used. Or want to keep it a long time.
My definition of lifetime is a lot longer than 100k miles, closer to 200k and 20 years.
I know this isn't the manufacturers definition....
"If the user of the item, the inventor and the politician OKing this are willing to be hit by the non-lethal weapon at least once every three months until it is taken off the list.
If they are willing to do that, then I'd believe them when they call it "non-lethal"."
Actually one of the best practical definitions I've encountered.
"Chemical (and later, biological) weapons are not only ugly in an aesthetic/"honorable war" sense, but they could allow a country which lacks conventional military capabilities to compete with a major power."
The problem with biological weapons is that they tend to come back at you. Banning them is more of a sanity measure-hopefully common sense will prevail before they are used. Not to mention they aren't terribly useful on combatants, at least in the short run.
"As a proud University of Kansas Jayhawk Alumni (1992 Bachelor of Science Computer Science) I have a perspective on this - Not all of Kansas is this conservative."
I think most can agree on that. I think the harder sell is stating that not all of Kansas is this ignorant, idiotic and/or clueless. That I think is currently a losing battle. I think the phrase is "sucks to be you":)
"Have you ever worked for a union? I have. And by and large, they promote mediocrity."
Have you ever worked for a non union shop? Because, in my experience, they tend to promote mediocrity....
In other words, union/non-union, quality/mediocrity are not strictly related. If I had to bet, I would guess that mediocrity and poor management went together though....
Slashdot Mirror
"You can only answer "yes" or "no" to the question: "Is person eligible to work at your company ever again?"
And the difference between giving a bad reference and eligible for rehire is what exactly? Second, how would you ever prove this? Finally, there are easy ways around this-call me back if this if this is a good employee, for instance. The law is a good thing. But it is as useful as laws against age discrimination in practice....
"Why not just use a cruise control type system to limit the speed?"
Beacause in portions of the US (don't know about Canada) it is LEGAL to exceed the speed limit to pass vehicles in certain situations? Then there is a little issue about safety....
Sorry, I still view it as plagiarism. If I did this in an academic setting, I could be in trouble (assuming anybody bothered to check). If a student copied a press release in a paper and didn't cite it the teacher would have every right to flunk him. You can be expelled for this offense in every college I have attended. That is another definition of plagiarism....
Repeat after me, publishing press releases as your own work is not journalism. I know full well that is the POINT of press releases-get specific information out (often badly biased or wrong in one form or another). But "journalists" who take press releases and publish it as their own work are lazy unethical hacks who should be fired. That step alone would greatly improve journalism or at least let everyone know how much "reporting" is by press release.....
"Seriously, the Federal should not be passing laws that govern individuals or businesses anyway. That should be for the States to decide independantly."
Which is exactly why, in your opinion we have
"the inoperative, unmanagemable, and overbearing Federal that we have today."
Congress doesn't just sit around and decide "Hey, let's pass a law today" (for the most part). They do it in response to their constituents. If the states had done a good job, there would be much less incentive for the federal government to step in. One could suggest many ways to fix this, but probably not any GOOD ways on balance.
I think it roughly sums to this-you get the representation that the general electorate deserves, which is the problem.....
"How many people throughout the years have claimed to have correctly figured out the formula for Coca-Cola. It is one of the most closely guarded secrets, and Coca-Cola has stated that the supposed formulas people have come up with are not the correct ones."
But it doesn't matter. Coca-cola is mostly about marketing the product. Bring out an identical product is not a significant threat to coke. Bringing out a identical product with similar marketing and distribution could be-but then, why wouldn't someone just buy coke? It doesn't make much financial sense.
"but I for one would welcome this kind of information being given to the CDC, especially if it could help me avoid getting into the middle of a pandemic, but more importantly giving my family a contact point if I'm actually in one."
Personally, I would suggest watching the news. And a cell phone. Much more useful than relying on the government considering their recent track record dealing with a certain storm.....
All the government is likely to do is pick up the pieces. And probably make it worse by quarantining people...
What is this free market you talk about with regards to cable? There is virtually nothing free about it. After all, what good is ala carte pricing if you are getting it from what is essentially a monopoly? I would predict that you will get less channels for more money. I can program my remote to do that :)
Personally when the FCC says it wants to do something good for the consumer, I start looking for my wallet and the vaseline....
"I would rather get my news from 100 blogs of different positions than from the New York Times, The Wallstreet Journal, or any of my local papers.
At least then I can pick through the crap, mix together the different points of view and come out with a fairly wellrounded understanding of things."
Well rounded? Or just lots of biased opinions based on a limited number of sets of reported facts? Pick up a paper, even the large ones, and you will notice that most of the articles are from the wire. Not reported by the paper at all. The only sections of a paper that directly reflect the staff is the local section and the editorial page. Otherwise the bias is in selecting the stories to run. Unless the bloggers have seen the news directly they are no better than the editorial page (granted, possibly the most interesting part of the paper....)
Finally, remember there is no such thing as unbiased. At best you can expect to know the bias. Harder than it sounds.
"This wouldn't make page 9 of a high-school newspaper, what's it doing on Slashdot?"
:)
I think you answered your own question
"No, the #1 reason public schools in CA are crap is because 80% of the school budget goes for ADMINISTRATION. Only 20% goes to pay teachers, supply classrooms, and keep facilities in good repair."
2 3.htm)
:)
Umm, I think you reversed those numbers. The largest operating largest cost in any school district is salaries. And the largest number of salaried bodies tends to be teachers.....
Oh, gee, here is something useful "The average spent on administration in California districts is about 7.3 percent." (http://www.sen.ca.gov/sor/policy/education/prop2
But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of your opinion
"That, and hospitals in America will do anything in their power to save your life first, and worry about costs later."
Big fucking deal. Sure, that's great. But remember they don't have a choice in that matter. If you are bleeding to death, they'll stop the bleeding. If you have a heart attack, they will treat you. But if you need a transplant, well, you will probably be out of luck. Long term treatment, sorry. Oh, treatment so you can be a productive member of society, that will be $$$.
The later costs will probably bankrupt you.
I believe that in every basic measure, Canada has better care. We can, of course, debate those measures. It should be noted that I do not consider speed and number of specialist as better care. The US system works fine for those with good jobs or who can afford good insurance. It is broken for those without.
I think it comes down to this: Does everyone have a right to affordable basic health care? If you answer no, then the US system is great. If you answer yes, then a nationalized system is currently the best way to go.
"The US is fixing the "No one sees the price tag" problem, its called HSA's. Hundreds of companies are moving to them, I own a small business its how my employees get coverage, we save tons of money on premiums, and we save tons of money on care because we all see the full price of everything, and we can shop around."
Companies are moving to them because they save money. More correctly, they shift costs from the company to the employee. Not wrong of course but they aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts....
How about the people who can't get/afford insurance? They do exist. HSA's aren't very useful for them.
Shopping around is a bit of a joke. That's great if you have a lot of time and don't want to stay with a particular doctor or don't have specialized problems. For many people it doesn't work. Hell, ever tried to pay CASH to a doctor when you didn't have health insurance? Not only do you confuse the hell out of the staff, but you get to pay "rack" rates (no negotiation) and pay it NOW. So much for a discount for saving them the trouble of getting their money sooner and with less hassle... In short, the uninsured subsidize the insured in this country. Same with prescriptions.
Lots of people rant at nationalized health care. But it is the best solution. It removes the profit motive. It removes inefficiency. It increases the number of people in the risk pool. Granted, it does suck for people who never get ill/sick/hurt. But any insurance does.
As for the lower levels of service, I don't see it. Service sucks for 40 million plus in this country now. I don't have a problem waiting for care-hell when I had good insurance I often had to wait months for needed care. Specialized scans (as are often brought up) are overused. MRIs are used in this country because they are readily available not because they are needed in many cases. They are often the refuge of crappy doctors.
Your solution is unworkable. You cannot make the health care system into a free market. Possibly a lot freer, but not totally.
"GM the car company is going bankrrupt, they just haven't bothered to file."
"GM the credit company, otoh, is firmly in the black."
Yep, they basically sell cars at a loss to make a profit on the financing. I believe Ford is like this too. How well GMAC would do without a "captive" market though.... They seem to be so determined to be number one in sales that they are willing to drive themselves into the ground. Classic denial. It will be interesting to watch-kind of like giving a drunk the keys to a rally car....
"What happens when everyone on the team is an actual owner, and the only way you could become an actual owner is through doing a good job? Several things: ....."
The things you state have everthing to do with good management. Little to nothing to do with stock ownership. Remember correlation does not equal causation. I don't know when you were an employee but it sounds like only a minority of the employees were eligible (based on current size). Even less considering they use a LOT of contractors (or craft employees as they call them).
In short, what you describe sounds like a basic employee owned company. Some are good working environments, some aren't.
"If the federal government can't help us now, then what are they there for?"
There is a difference between not being able and not wanting to. Let's face it, a lot of people lied. I'll let you figure it out.
"If the federal government didn't want to use the Corps of Engineers to protect New Orleans with levees, then why'd they tell us that they were going to?"
They did. Of course, a few were built and/or maintained poorly. Which leads to a another question-if a poorly built levy (or one that has been showing signs of potential failure was ignored by the locals) can essentially doom an entire city from a moderate to large hurricane, what good are they? More precisely, why protect non-essential things. People can be relocated to higher ground. It makes no sense to rebuild a significant portion of that city. It is roughly akin to living in a flood zone-some structures you just can't move. Others you just don't allow there. Once destroyed, you don't allow them to be rebuilt.
"But it's all done under this cloud of uncertainty, because the feds are waffling on fixing the levees."
I don't think there is any question about rebuilding the levees. It's only a few billion. Maybe a ten to 20 billion at the outside. Not much on the US Government side. But there is no sense rebuilding until you know why the levees failed and how to prevent it in the future. It is also a policy debate-how much of the area do you protect. Finally, it will take up to 20 years to build them. And until that time a Cat 5 storm can come through and wipe the city off the map. Gee, I wonder why there is uncertainty. It cannot be prevented in even the best case scenario. No one wants to spend 200 billion or so dollars and have it washed away....
The bottom line? It sucks if you lived in New Orleans. But I don't see a massive economic impact from it. That is the only thing that will encourage the rebuilding. In other words, if the loss from not rebuilding is greater than the cost of building. Finally, no one said recovery was going to be quick. Anyone who thought the city was going to be up and running in a couple of months was optimistic at best but most likely trending towards clueless....
So, if that is true, what does that imply about a certain Deity that may or may not exist.... :)
:)
Of course, that could explain a whole lot....
Personally, I see no reason why absolute power should corrupt absolutely. The pursuit of it, sure, but once you have it, I think you would be rather bored.
"Only in places where seat belt use is a primary crime."
Sure, but they can use virtually ANY excuse to pull you over if they see/think that you don't have it on. Oops, that car weaved a little to the left, better pull them over type of thing. The difference between a primary/seconday crime is really how convenient it is for the police to enforce it (or how much of a cover story they need...)
In other words, the difference between primary and secondary traffic infractions is rather meaningless. About as useful as the words "probable cause" related to traffic searches-if they need it or want it, they'll get it. It may bite them in the rear end later after you spend lots of money on a lawyer of course.....
"Who'd pay 1-1/2 times iTunes price?"
Well, you are assuming that the iTunes price won't increase. Not a good assumption....
"The battery carries a 100,000 mile warranty, and is designed for the life of the car."
I suspect what people really want to know is "What is the designed life?" And how much will replacements cost. Important if you buy it used. Or want to keep it a long time.
My definition of lifetime is a lot longer than 100k miles, closer to 200k and 20 years.
I know this isn't the manufacturers definition....
"Economics is not a fundamentally flawed science."
Fair enough. However, it seems to be as scientific as political science. That is, very possibly not a science at all....
"Thats the key - they are doing *both*. Charging for it, AND showing ads."
:)
You mean it's like cable
"If the user of the item, the inventor and the politician OKing this are willing to be hit by the non-lethal weapon at least once every three months until it is taken off the list.
If they are willing to do that, then I'd believe them when they call it "non-lethal"."
Actually one of the best practical definitions I've encountered.
"Chemical (and later, biological) weapons are not only ugly in an aesthetic/"honorable war" sense, but they could allow a country which lacks conventional military capabilities to compete with a major power."
The problem with biological weapons is that they tend to come back at you. Banning them is more of a sanity measure-hopefully common sense will prevail before they are used. Not to mention they aren't terribly useful on combatants, at least in the short run.
Now if you are a terrorist.....
"As a proud University of Kansas Jayhawk Alumni (1992 Bachelor of Science Computer Science) I have a perspective on this - Not all of Kansas is this conservative."
:)
I think most can agree on that. I think the harder sell is stating that not all of Kansas is this ignorant, idiotic and/or clueless. That I think is currently a losing battle. I think the phrase is "sucks to be you"
And here's hoping my state won't be next....
"Have you ever worked for a union? I have. And by and large, they promote mediocrity."
Have you ever worked for a non union shop? Because, in my experience, they tend to promote mediocrity....
In other words, union/non-union, quality/mediocrity are not strictly related. If I had to bet, I would guess that mediocrity and poor management went together though....