> Employers always want to take advantage of their labour.
and employees always want to take advantage of their employer. The combination works quite well together:)
While unions might be the answer, the fact that the workers *could* unionize is a stick on the workers side; some companies realize that they can keep a union out by treating the employees better than they could get with a union.
Unions are a huge transaction cost. There's a whole lot of room for both sides to be happy if you divvy up the costs of running the union between lower costs for management and higher wages/perks/whaterver for labor . . .
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If
you need legal advice, contact an attorney
licensed in your own jurisdiction. (and for
heavens sake, drop any notions about the law you
picked up on slashdot on the way in!)
He should definitely contact a lawyer, but what
he needs is a labor lawyer, not a contract
lawyer. I'm very well qualified as a contract
lawyer, but, unless there was a prior
relationship with the client (or unless I
expected to see enough of these coming up to make
it worth boning up on that area of the law far
more than would be justified by the fee on a
single consultation), I'd probably punt this to a
labor lawyer. If there was a prior relationship,
I'd probably hire or associate a labor lawyer.
>I am not talking about the supreme court only. Judges are appointed
>because of their political affiliations in all levels.
There has been more success by both parties at the lower level, yes.
>The senate
>blockade of Clinton's nominees was mostly for federal and appelate
>judges, not the supreme court.
>the "blockade" is a *bit* more complicated than that, but I'll let it pass.
>Plus, you have just said what I said.
>Judges have a political affiliation that is crucial to their decision.
Yes, but at the top level, this political affiliation is only loosely
correlated with with the party appointing the judge.
>You can dress it up as constitutional interpretation.
It's not a matter of "dressing it up". It is *supposed* to be
constitutional interpretation, but as I said, this only has 2.5 of
the 9 votes at the mements. Then the democrats have 4, and the
republicans 2.5. Scalia and Thomas are the only ones who will
consistently vote for a result they don't like when the constitution
requires it--and when Scalia writes the majority opinions in those
cases, it's easy to tell he doesn't like the results.
> Sometimes it is,
>and sometimes it is raw favoritism ( cf. Gore vs. Bush. ).
Unless you're referring to the Florida Supreme Court, this is
just nonsense. The result they reached is the only possible
result that is consistent with the last 100 years of administrative
law and the last 150 of election law. (But yes, I was surprised
that they were able to create a 7 vote majority on the substance
of the issue that relied solely on well-settled law. And for the
record, I'd have joined with the two liberal justice who joined
the majority but thought that Florida should be able to try to
do something consistent with the decision in the 28 (?) or so
hours that remained. I think that the 5 votes that said there
was no possible way to do wo were correct that there would be no
way to meat the deadline [but then again, I had thought there was
no way to get a 7 vote majority based on established principles.
Nonetheless, the state was still entitled to try.)
>>If you look at the actual voting records rather than the political and
>>media hype, you'll find that your best friend on the court (most
>>likely to vote in your favor when faced with government power or
>>intrusion) is Thomas... followed by Scalia.
>I see you have been an intern on Pravda. Could you please supply us
>with some precise examples of Thomas and Scalia protecting me (
>assuming 'me' to be an ordinary citizen without big pockets) against
>anything?
When you cross from generalizations about the behaviro of the court
from years of observation, you get into things that I charge to do.
As such, I won't do it off the cuff. If you or anyone else wants
to cover my retainer, I'll be happy to provide the examples, the
contra-examples, and a detailed analysis. I doubt, though, that
anyone reading slashdot would be interested enough to cover my
minimum fee:)
>There have been a number of statistical studies of the supreme court.
>There is little doubt that except for the dramatically out of line
>Warren court the US Supreme court has never been in the business of
>protecting ordinary Americans against anything.
Only by those who reach this conclusion before thinking.
> The typical supreme
>court decision protecting against over-zealous government is Dred
>Scott Vs. Stanford, Row vs. Wade is rather the exception.
Curious. You cite the two leading candidates for the worst cases
to ever come down from the court. And no, I don't mean for the
results reached, but for the flagrant abuse of judicial power
used to reach the conclusion in both cases.
>But then, since you are a fan of Scalia, I assume you think Dred Scot
>was a shining example of protecting personal liberties. Good for you!
Ahh, nothing like a good old ad hominem attack when you're relying
on simple ignorance. I would, however, love to read the dissent
that Scalia would have written in that case . . .
>you have a rather skewed view of the approaches taken by the two
>parties here . .
>>I believe I have a realistic understanding that the Republican party
>>is doing what it can to close the door of the court to all but the
>>insanely rich.
Uh, yeah. Leaving aside the fact that it's the moderately rich that
tend to be republican, and that the insanely rich and very big
corporations tend to lean democratic, this just plain falls into the
"what color is the sky in your world category." I was actually
taking you seriously until this.
>You are welcome to prove me wrong.
From the last couple of your comments, it's clear that there's no point.
If God came down and told you otherwise, you'd take it as a
republican trick.
you have a rather skewed view of the approaches taken by the two parties here . . .
*both* parties try to put in judges who view the constitution in the same way as they do. Suggesting that either party does more of this is simply ignorant (at least if you leave out Al Gore--to the best of my knowledge, he's the only candidate for president from either major party in modern history to promise a litmus test on a particular issue).
The republican track record in getting Supreme Court justices to point their way is pathetic; they'd do as well by drawing random names for the membership rolls of the bar in various states--Earl Warren and Justice Souter come to mind.
Right now there's a 3 way split on the court, with the classic liberals holding the swing votes between the liberal/democratic block (about half of which were appointed by republicans) and the conservative/republican block.
If you look at the actual voting records rather than the political and media hype, you'll find that your best friend on the court (most likely to vote in your favor when faced with government power or intrusion) is Thomas (again, against all reasonable expectations at the time of his appointment), followed by Scalia (unless the safety of a police officer is involved). Then comes Kennedy on his good days.
i
On his bad days, Kennedy joins the conservative block and votes like a good
republican. The other six votes are entirely predictable (2 republican and
4 democratic).
The "unual and unexpected coalition" you sometimes here referred to
comes up when the classic liberals vote with the liberals--and these
votes are quite predictable.
When you see a 6-3 vote with Thomas, Rehnquist, and Kennedy in dissent, watch out. Look quickly; the conservatives and liberals just ganged up and took away some of your liberties. Even worse tend to be the 7-2 votes, when Kennedy *doesn't* joint Thomas and Scalia . . . *ugh*
While I fall in pretty close with the "original intent" crowd (but not exactly), I've grudgingly come to accept the result in Marbury v. Madison as necessary and correct.
Laws are enforced by actions in court. If a law is not within the constitutional power of the government, it is not within the constitutional power of the court to enforce.
On top of that, the Federalist Papers were *quite* clear that this was a role of the court; it was a *selling point* to a population that didn't trust central governments . . .
There are 2^n ways to arrange bits. The number of ways to arrange all possible sequences of bits ranging from since 1 to (n-1) is 2^(n-1).
There is *at least* one sequence that cannot, by an arbitrary method, be reduced to a shorter length. On top of that, you need to use some bits for the compressor.
OTOH, if you can include "external" information in your compressor (either the algorithm or a function), you can have an algorithm that will compress any stream, and compress your favorite stream to a single bit. As an example, the first bit is 1 (and the only bit) if it is your stream, and 0 followed by the entire stream for any other stream.
>"telephone skills" are often cited as necessary when a job is advertised.
While I didn't advertise that (and didn't expect it myself at first),
when I hired secretaries while practicing law, the *bulk* of my decision
was actually made during the initial phone call inquiring about the
job. For a small law practice, the secretary's phone presense
is a make or break issue . . .
At the school I was visiting last years, the tech guys were annoyed that I had a mail server running on my box--but also told me they had no power to stop me. So when I needed email lists for my classes, I sent them a message to request that these be created.
Their response was to send me a URL to a form I should print out, fill out, return, and wait for my "request" to be considered.
It was a lot easier to just install list managing software on my own machine . . .
>Im not so sure I agree that short thank you or acknowledgement email
>is really that harmful. After all, how long does it take to read one
>line and click delete.
You're going to have a hard time convincing someone who had three different nicad packs from three different companies (apple, bti, and I forget who) consistantly see the lives of all three batteries drop from about 1:40 to about:35 unless regularlyu discharged. . . .
I'm not trying to downplay Xerox's actions; they certainly developed a GUI on their own. I'm only trynig to point out that there was independent work by Apple on the Lisa GUI, including screen mockups, that predate exposure to the Star. Popular mythology has the Lisa and Mac as rip-offs of the sar. Their ultimate form was certainly heavily influenced by it, but Lisa started on its own.
while I'm at it, a lot of it predates the Star--to a significant extent, Lisa and Mac were implementations of Raskin's master's thesis from the 60's . . .
i
I've got a whole bunch of them (4 children meant $30 of batteries on Dec. 26 1999), and I"m afinding that when you try to recharge them, you have about a 5 in 6 chance of success--even on the first recharge. And of those 5, one may only take a partial charge. I'm starting to switch kids stuff over to NiMh.
In law school, I carried a tandy 102 and a tape recorder to class. I also had two or three spare four-packs of charged nicads in my pockets.
The 102 claimed it wanted 4 alkalines, for 6 volts. On these, the battery warning came on with 20 minuts or so left. On my NiCads, it was 20 seconds . . .
If I'd made the modification to house a 5th nicad, as many people did, to get the whole 6 volts, it probably would have been worse: by running at 5/6 voltage, the current draw as also 5/6 (for the cmos technology that that thing used). With the full 6v, I would have lost battery life and warning time.
hawk, who still occasionally uses the 102 (modern email at 300 baud can be interesting. . .:)
>I always thought that Apple had to release their kernel source in some form
Nope. No obligation at all. The simple fact of the matter is that, under certain circumstances, it makes economic sense for a corporation to use an open source model for the "generic" portions of their product--development and maintenance costs may simply be less than the market opportunities sacrificed. In other words, Apple's and IBM's open source activities are driven by economics, not ideology.
I'm working on a paper on this right now, hopefully available in the late summer or fall.
o.b. gratuitious plug: grad students in economics with a background in the public goods literature may feel free to contact me about co-authoring the paper:)
We were more offended by the reds at that time, and more willing to call a spade a spade. This is before the gullible class started selling the line that the communists were peace loving, that our system was not better than theirs, etc.
hawk, who still refers to "Red China," and will be boycotting all mainland chinese goods for a full year [ironically, that tends to mean buying taiwanese, as with my daughter's scooter last week. The *sole* reason I didn't by the first one was the act of war followed by terrorism]
The soviet space program has already been caught in plenty of coverups and orwellian rewriting of the past. This tale is consistent with the others save for one small detail: they tended to do the job poorly, allowing the cat to get out of the bag. This led to entire books using released soviet information to document the frauds--using the same picture twice, but with non-persons airbrushed out, adding an escape system to a rocket (done in *pencil* on a photograph, for crying out loud) to show that their systems were safer than ours after one of ours blew, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
and employees always want to take advantage of their employer. The combination works quite well together
While unions might be the answer, the fact that the workers *could* unionize is a stick on the workers side; some companies realize that they can keep a union out by treating the employees better than they could get with a union.
Unions are a huge transaction cost. There's a whole lot of room for both sides to be happy if you divvy up the costs of running the union between lower costs for management and higher wages/perks/whaterver for labor . . .
hawk, speaking as an economist this time
you need legal advice, contact an attorney
licensed in your own jurisdiction. (and for
heavens sake, drop any notions about the law you
picked up on slashdot on the way in!)
He should definitely contact a lawyer, but what
he needs is a labor lawyer, not a contract
lawyer. I'm very well qualified as a contract
lawyer, but, unless there was a prior
relationship with the client (or unless I
expected to see enough of these coming up to make
it worth boning up on that area of the law far
more than would be justified by the fee on a
single consultation), I'd probably punt this to a
labor lawyer. If there was a prior relationship,
I'd probably hire or associate a labor lawyer.
hawk, esq.
:)
>I am not talking about the supreme court only. Judges are appointed
>because of their political affiliations in all levels.
There has been more success by both parties at the lower level, yes.
>The senate
>blockade of Clinton's nominees was mostly for federal and appelate
>judges, not the supreme court.
>the "blockade" is a *bit* more complicated than that, but I'll let it pass.
>Plus, you have just said what I said.
>Judges have a political affiliation that is crucial to their decision.
Yes, but at the top level, this political affiliation is only loosely
correlated with with the party appointing the judge.
>You can dress it up as constitutional interpretation.
It's not a matter of "dressing it up". It is *supposed* to be
constitutional interpretation, but as I said, this only has 2.5 of
the 9 votes at the mements. Then the democrats have 4, and the
republicans 2.5. Scalia and Thomas are the only ones who will
consistently vote for a result they don't like when the constitution
requires it--and when Scalia writes the majority opinions in those
cases, it's easy to tell he doesn't like the results.
> Sometimes it is,
>and sometimes it is raw favoritism ( cf. Gore vs. Bush. ).
Unless you're referring to the Florida Supreme Court, this is
just nonsense. The result they reached is the only possible
result that is consistent with the last 100 years of administrative
law and the last 150 of election law. (But yes, I was surprised
that they were able to create a 7 vote majority on the substance
of the issue that relied solely on well-settled law. And for the
record, I'd have joined with the two liberal justice who joined
the majority but thought that Florida should be able to try to
do something consistent with the decision in the 28 (?) or so
hours that remained. I think that the 5 votes that said there
was no possible way to do wo were correct that there would be no
way to meat the deadline [but then again, I had thought there was
no way to get a 7 vote majority based on established principles.
Nonetheless, the state was still entitled to try.)
>>If you look at the actual voting records rather than the political and
>>media hype, you'll find that your best friend on the court (most
>>likely to vote in your favor when faced with government power or
>>intrusion) is Thomas... followed by Scalia.
>I see you have been an intern on Pravda. Could you please supply us
>with some precise examples of Thomas and Scalia protecting me (
>assuming 'me' to be an ordinary citizen without big pockets) against
>anything?
When you cross from generalizations about the behaviro of the court
from years of observation, you get into things that I charge to do.
As such, I won't do it off the cuff. If you or anyone else wants
to cover my retainer, I'll be happy to provide the examples, the
contra-examples, and a detailed analysis. I doubt, though, that
anyone reading slashdot would be interested enough to cover my
minimum fee
>There have been a number of statistical studies of the supreme court.
>There is little doubt that except for the dramatically out of line
>Warren court the US Supreme court has never been in the business of
>protecting ordinary Americans against anything.
Only by those who reach this conclusion before thinking.
> The typical supreme
>court decision protecting against over-zealous government is Dred
>Scott Vs. Stanford, Row vs. Wade is rather the exception.
Curious. You cite the two leading candidates for the worst cases
to ever come down from the court. And no, I don't mean for the
results reached, but for the flagrant abuse of judicial power
used to reach the conclusion in both cases.
>But then, since you are a fan of Scalia, I assume you think Dred Scot
>was a shining example of protecting personal liberties. Good for you!
Ahh, nothing like a good old ad hominem attack when you're relying
on simple ignorance. I would, however, love to read the dissent
that Scalia would have written in that case . . .
>you have a rather skewed view of the approaches taken by the two
>parties here . .
>>I believe I have a realistic understanding that the Republican party
>>is doing what it can to close the door of the court to all but the
>>insanely rich.
Uh, yeah. Leaving aside the fact that it's the moderately rich that
tend to be republican, and that the insanely rich and very big
corporations tend to lean democratic, this just plain falls into the
"what color is the sky in your world category." I was actually
taking you seriously until this.
>You are welcome to prove me wrong.
From the last couple of your comments, it's clear that there's no point.
If God came down and told you otherwise, you'd take it as a
republican trick.
hawk,esq.
*both* parties try to put in judges who view the constitution in the same way as they do. Suggesting that either party does more of this is simply ignorant (at least if you leave out Al Gore--to the best of my knowledge, he's the only candidate for president from either major party in modern history to promise a litmus test on a particular issue).
The republican track record in getting Supreme Court justices to point their way is pathetic; they'd do as well by drawing random names for the membership rolls of the bar in various states--Earl Warren and Justice Souter come to mind.
Right now there's a 3 way split on the court, with the classic liberals holding the swing votes between the liberal/democratic block (about half of which were appointed by republicans) and the conservative/republican block.
If you look at the actual voting records rather than the political and media hype, you'll find that your best friend on the court (most likely to vote in your favor when faced with government power or intrusion) is Thomas (again, against all reasonable expectations at the time of his appointment), followed by Scalia (unless the safety of a police officer is involved). Then comes Kennedy on his good days.
i
On his bad days, Kennedy joins the conservative block and votes like a good
republican. The other six votes are entirely predictable (2 republican and
4 democratic).
The "unual and unexpected coalition" you sometimes here referred to
comes up when the classic liberals vote with the liberals--and these
votes are quite predictable.
When you see a 6-3 vote with Thomas, Rehnquist, and Kennedy in dissent, watch out. Look quickly; the conservatives and liberals just ganged up and took away some of your liberties. Even worse tend to be the 7-2 votes, when Kennedy *doesn't* joint Thomas and Scalia . . . *ugh*
hawk, esq. and civile libertarian at large
Laws are enforced by actions in court. If a law is not within the constitutional power of the government, it is not within the constitutional power of the court to enforce.
On top of that, the Federalist Papers were *quite* clear that this was a role of the court; it was a *selling point* to a population that didn't trust central governments . . .
hawk
There is *at least* one sequence that cannot, by an arbitrary method, be reduced to a shorter length. On top of that, you need to use some bits for the compressor.
OTOH, if you can include "external" information in your compressor (either the algorithm or a function), you can have an algorithm that will compress any stream, and compress your favorite stream to a single bit. As an example, the first bit is 1 (and the only bit) if it is your stream, and 0 followed by the entire stream for any other stream.
hawk
While I didn't advertise that (and didn't expect it myself at first),
when I hired secretaries while practicing law, the *bulk* of my decision
was actually made during the initial phone call inquiring about the
job. For a small law practice, the secretary's phone presense
is a make or break issue . . .
hawk
Their response was to send me a URL to a form I should print out, fill out, return, and wait for my "request" to be considered.
It was a lot easier to just install list managing software on my own machine . . .
hawk
>is really that harmful. After all, how long does it take to read one
>line and click delete.
Yeah, it's quality marketing, not spam . . .
hawk, now taking his tongue back out of his cheek
hmm, maybe 4th class, too--I think that that's the classification for books . . .
hawk
:)
> fine of up to US$500 or by community service.
per add, presumably.
Prosecute them! Make them do community service! For each infraction, force them to replace windows with linux on a municipal machine!
hawk
You're going to have a hard time convincing someone who had three different nicad packs from three different companies (apple, bti, and I forget who) consistantly see the lives of all three batteries drop from about 1:40 to about :35 unless regularlyu discharged. . . .
hey, then we could use it to directly spin the hard drive . . .
while I'm at it, a lot of it predates the Star--to a significant extent, Lisa and Mac were implementations of Raskin's master's thesis from the 60's . . .
i
hawk
Now I'll have to take my laptop in for a smog check . . .
I've got a whole bunch of them (4 children meant $30 of batteries on Dec. 26 1999), and I"m afinding that when you try to recharge them, you have about a 5 in 6 chance of success--even on the first recharge. And of those 5, one may only take a partial charge. I'm starting to switch kids stuff over to NiMh.
The 102 claimed it wanted 4 alkalines, for 6 volts. On these, the battery warning came on with 20 minuts or so left. On my NiCads, it was 20 seconds . . .
If I'd made the modification to house a 5th nicad, as many people did, to get the whole 6 volts, it probably would have been worse: by running at 5/6 voltage, the current draw as also 5/6 (for the cmos technology that that thing used). With the full 6v, I would have lost battery life and warning time.
hawk, who still occasionally uses the 102 (modern email at 300 baud can be interesting. . .
There is no memory effect; what is perceived as memory effect is a result of overcharging.
Second stage (going between the lines):
There are no consumer available chargers or computers that will charge properly; they all overcharge:
Final step (in english):
The life of your NiCad will drop quickly in any normal use in any available product with any available charger.
Nope. No obligation at all. The simple fact of the matter is that, under certain circumstances, it makes economic sense for a corporation to use an open source model for the "generic" portions of their product--development and maintenance costs may simply be less than the market opportunities sacrificed. In other words, Apple's and IBM's open source activities are driven by economics, not ideology.
I'm working on a paper on this right now, hopefully available in the late summer or fall.
o.b. gratuitious plug: grad students in economics with a background in the public goods literature may feel free to contact me about co-authoring the paper
hawk
hawk
Inventing the Lisa Interface to see that the Lisa GUI predates contact with PARC.
in fact, it' has all kinds of cool stuff about Lisa.
hawk, one of about 6
hawk, who still refers to "Red China," and will be boycotting all mainland chinese goods for a full year [ironically, that tends to mean buying taiwanese, as with my daughter's scooter last week. The *sole* reason I didn't by the first one was the act of war followed by terrorism]
hawk