So, you feel that if they can ignore personal responsibility it's OK for you to be irresponsible as well. Hypocrit!
Not really. Motivation flows from the top. The examples need to be set at the top. We hold those in the highest positions with the most power to the highest standards, not the other way around.
This comming from the person who thinks that socialism and facism are part and parcel. One is an economic system, the other is the dominance of a single, feverent political ideology. The two could hardly be less similar.
I live in the SF bay area, and they're damned well scarce out here. There's certainly not enough to support a viable breeding population.
That sounds somewhat more plausible.:) Part of the problem, however, is how "conservative" and "liberal" have been distorted over the last 20 years or so. It seems that the conservatives from 10 years ago are now "moderates" (i.e. McCain) and the conservatives from 20 years ago are verging on "liberal". As another example, in 2000 Gore ran a campaign that in many ways was more conservatve than Nixon's in 68.
The role of a libertarian government is precisely to prevent people from doing harm to each other, so it's nonsensical to say libertarians don't expect for that to happen.
No, that's why libertarians are nonsensical. They are against large government agencies and regulations, which are necessary to "prevent people from doing harm to each other".
It's about time more people understood that "conservative" is not a swear word.
This sounds like O'Reilly claiming that the 180 million christians in this country are somehow being persecuted by the 5 or 6 athiests/agnostics living in the U.S. Conservative ideas dominate both politics and the media, so I'm curious as to what part of the country you live in that conservatives are an endangered species.
Mp3 is still the king. There is no format out there that comes close.
Not when it comes to podcasts, it aint. AAC supports bookmarking, so you can resume your 20 minute podcast right where you left off. And besides, there's a reason why it's called "podcasting".
AAC supports bookmarking, which allows you to resume listening to an audiobook or podcast exactly where you left off, in either iTunes or on an iPod. For example, you could start listening to a nice 20 minute podcast on the way to the gym, switch to your workout playlist, and then resume your podcast on the way home.
When i ran itunes on my windows box (on 24/7) as my main media player, it seemed to do a perfectly good job of this (Eating over 300MB of my 512MB of ram)
Either you have a few hundered thousand songs or something's wack. I have over 16,000 songs in my iTunes on my PC, and while playing a video it uses 70 megs of ram.
Quake 3 has a handicap setting that limits your health, armor and damage you can inflict to a percentage of the normal values. There are auto-balancing mods for some shooters that will even out teams or change the toughness of individual players on the fly. Or you could play an FPS using only the keyboard while your GF plays with a mouse.
Or go for an acessory - beer.:) If you are more than five frags ahead, drink one can.
When they're paying the bill, they say what goes. Keep it private. We don't want any more censorship.
Nonsense. The U.S. government has already paid for much of the net's R&D. Other governments such as Canada and S. Korea have similarily made internet access a priority and haven't had problems with censorship.
Besides, ownership isn't necessary for the luddites to try to get their fingers in the pie. See COPA or the new round of "indecency" fines levied against television stations.
I think we would be having an impeachment trial of Al Gore if he did these things and won the election of 2000. But since Bush is a republican its ok.
Or better yet, if we didn't have the 22nd amendment and Clinton were still president. He'd have been impeached, convicted, and been given a long prison sentance a dozen times over by now.
Don't forget to consider that Plame was hardly a secret agent.
Go read your own article. A senior diplotmat knew she was a spy, some friendly agencies knew she was a spy, and unfriendly agencies assumed she was a spy because she worked at an embassy. There is a big chasm of difference between that and her indentity being common knowledge. So, in summary: take your right-wing spin and shove it up your ass.
You clearly do not understand what the ruling was that lead to the Florida results.
What was "clear" is that the ruling was bogus. SCOTUS stopped the vote on the grounds that different methods were used to recount the votes. Except differing methods are obviously going to be necessary when you had as many different methods of voting as Florida had.
Would this fellow care to provide many examples of governments that aren't/weren't male dominated?
That argument is a red herring. Women do not need female members of Congress to have their issues represented. Examples: the Violence Against Women Act, when men make up the vast majority of victums of violence. Or that more money is spent on women's health care despite the fact that the average female life span is longer by several years. Or all the draconian child support laws, whereas messing with visitation rights nets the custodial parent (read: the mom) a slap on the wrist at best.
Strike" refers to when they refuse to leave and actively harass replacement workers.
Wrong. A strike is merely refusing to work - what you are referring to is a sit-down strike.
lol, as if you've bothered with the facts yourself.
None of my assertions required citations. Your's do. For example:
It happens *every* time. Name me one time it *didn't* happen -- a time when the union members merely refused to show up for work and never sued of threatend to sue the employer for hiring replacement workers. I'm not holding my breath.
The workers are certianally entitled to sueing if the company broke contract or labor laws. But back to my origional point: name me some examples of sit-downs where the workers got violent.
And what's your fetish with ratio to executive pay? If workers are enjoying an ever-higher standard of living, who the fuck cares is others are too?
Anyone who's not an idiot? You can hardly fault the company for paying dirt wages if the owner is also making dirt profits. You can fault the company if you and the CEO are both working 60 hour weeks, except your pay and benefits keep getting cut while he makes 500 times as much as you do while still getting massive raises and stock options every year.
Strikes are deliberately chosed to be at critical times when the will have management "by the balls".
No, they're usually done during negotiations for new contracts.
The problem though is that where such unionization or tactics become commonplace, investors learn to *anticipate* such actions and only create jobs there in which they offer wages discounted to account for such disturbances, just like, in the example you failed to grasp, why you would only shop at the described supermarket if they offered lower prices to begin with.
Or whatever crap your anus tells you to believe. I find it comical when people blame workers who (gasp) fight for a fair, livable wage for higher prices but not only ignore but actually defend massive executive greed. You want some facts, why don't you try reading up on the subject before someone mods you down, again.
CEO's make pay and bonuses in the low millions where as the cost of an entire workforce costs in the low to mid billions.
And makes a few hundered times as much, on average. But there's not just the CEO - there's COO, the CFO, the board of directors, a gaggle of vice presidents, and the rest of senior management.
Whether we like to admit it or not, CEO's and other senior managers are special people with a special skill set.
Well...duh. No one says CEO's should't be highly compensated; it's one of the most demanding and stressful jobs one can have. However, no CEO is worth 300 times what his average worker makes, especially since upper management scews that average.
If workers are expected to do more for less, then management can do the same, or else it is total hypocracy. More so since a 20% cut to a worker making $60k a year has a much greater impact than a 20% cut to a CEO getting $20 million a year. If workers are getting cut while upper management is getting large raises and bonses, then that is completly inexcusable, butt-fucking hypocracy and they should burn in hell.
The problem with most anti-union arguments is that they are almost always based on annecdotes, and in your case, one sided and emotional ones. This is foolish, because we don't go around smearing ALL businesses as being bad because some cheat on their taxes and dump toxic waste into rivers.
Sorry, but if the market decides that all programming is worth is $8 an hour, no government or labor union is going to be able to change this, at least over a long term.
Which would be fine if the market decided a CEO was only worth $200, but obviously that's not the case. Wages and benefits have been cut for the middle and lower classes while executive pay has exploded.
All a labor union can eventually do is drive the company out of business.
Nonsense. There isn't a union that wont take honest cuts if it means keeping the business, and their jobs, alive. What they wont do is willing make massive sacrifices so the company stays afloat AND the CEO gets to keep his 20% annual pay raise and golden parachute.
Look at auto workers in the US. We will not be making cars in the US much longer because of labor costs.
Again, nonsense. American car comapnies are in trouble because Americans don't want to buy their vehicles. Detroit was too busy wallowing in the SUV bonanza and fighting regulations to make more fuel efficient cars, and got creamed when Katrina sent fuel prices through the roof. If GM had the Prius, they would be in vastly better shape.
Transportation has reached the point where labor will move to the cheapest location, worldwide. No union is going to be able to prevent that.
LOL. The association between unions and organized crime is well-known.
Maybe if you just stepped out of the 50's. But if ALL unions are bad because of a few tomato salesmen, then ALL businesses are bad because of Enron and Wal-Mart.
I realize this may sound like flamebait, but _most_ of the people asking for unionizaion of IT come from the least skilled end of the curve.
Sure, but unions were never about protecting the elite. They are about sticking up for the common worker, and there's no reason you should have to be extrodinary just to make a decent living.
They get access to the CEO's laptop, they get to guard the salary database, the works. I don't know if managers would be comfortable having unionized employees in those roles.
And the reason for that would be...? Unions provide stability, but don't prevent anyone from being fired if there is cause. Which would you worry about more - the livelong union employee messing with company assets, or a burned out at-will worker who's just found out his job has been outsourced to India?
But the only way I can see a union using "free market" means to get its way is to threaten to quit en masse if the employer didn't meet their demands.
Because that would be stupid for both parties. The workers want a job, the company wants workers. Actually quitting en mass wouldn't do either any good. This is what strikes are for - employees refuse to work, giving managment the option of negotiating or firing the strikers and hiring a new workforce.
They block enterances and refuse to leave. They harass customers and resort to violence.
Okay, how many times has this actually happened in the last 50 years. Besides, this is one of those boilerplate anti-union arguments out of a bad Jimmy Hoffa movie. Union X did bad deed Y in 19XX, so therefore...we shouldn't have unions! If we applied the same logic to business, we wouldn't allow any companies because they would all cheat on their taxes, dumb toxic chemicals into the river and fondle their secretaries.
First of all, wage growth was much faster in late 19th century America vs. Europe, while the former was virtually devoid of unions, while the latter was heavily unionized.
Of course you have economic facts to back this up, such as ratio of worker to executive pay, adjusting for different currencies and industries, right?
Would you really want to invest somewhere where your employees will randomly decide to just shut down at a critical moment?
Your points are both correct regarding the 40 hour week and child labor - but in the modern day, unions seem to exist more to shaft companies in the name of helping employees.
Of course, that's why executive pay has remained mostly stagnant for the last 20 years while the pay, bonuses and pensions given to the working class have exploded. And good, hard working American CEO's have been fired and replaced with cheap MBA's from India. Oh wait, I think I have something backwards here.....
Slashdot Mirror
So, you feel that if they can ignore personal responsibility it's OK for you to be irresponsible as well. Hypocrit!
Not really. Motivation flows from the top. The examples need to be set at the top. We hold those in the highest positions with the most power to the highest standards, not the other way around.
You are awfully dense, aren't you?
This comming from the person who thinks that socialism and facism are part and parcel. One is an economic system, the other is the dominance of a single, feverent political ideology. The two could hardly be less similar.
I live in the SF bay area, and they're damned well scarce out here. There's certainly not enough to support a viable breeding population.
:) Part of the problem, however, is how "conservative" and "liberal" have been distorted over the last 20 years or so. It seems that the conservatives from 10 years ago are now "moderates" (i.e. McCain) and the conservatives from 20 years ago are verging on "liberal". As another example, in 2000 Gore ran a campaign that in many ways was more conservatve than Nixon's in 68.
That sounds somewhat more plausible.
The role of a libertarian government is precisely to prevent people from doing harm to each other, so it's nonsensical to say libertarians don't expect for that to happen.
No, that's why libertarians are nonsensical. They are against large government agencies and regulations, which are necessary to "prevent people from doing harm to each other".
It's about time more people understood that "conservative" is not a swear word.
This sounds like O'Reilly claiming that the 180 million christians in this country are somehow being persecuted by the 5 or 6 athiests/agnostics living in the U.S. Conservative ideas dominate both politics and the media, so I'm curious as to what part of the country you live in that conservatives are an endangered species.
Doesn't seem to work in 2000. Is than an XP thing?
Mp3 is still the king. There is no format out there that comes close.
Not when it comes to podcasts, it aint. AAC supports bookmarking, so you can resume your 20 minute podcast right where you left off. And besides, there's a reason why it's called "podcasting".
AAC supports bookmarking, which allows you to resume listening to an audiobook or podcast exactly where you left off, in either iTunes or on an iPod. For example, you could start listening to a nice 20 minute podcast on the way to the gym, switch to your workout playlist, and then resume your podcast on the way home.
When i ran itunes on my windows box (on 24/7) as my main media player, it seemed to do a perfectly good job of this (Eating over 300MB of my 512MB of ram)
Either you have a few hundered thousand songs or something's wack. I have over 16,000 songs in my iTunes on my PC, and while playing a video it uses 70 megs of ram.
Quake 3 has a handicap setting that limits your health, armor and damage you can inflict to a percentage of the normal values. There are auto-balancing mods for some shooters that will even out teams or change the toughness of individual players on the fly. Or you could play an FPS using only the keyboard while your GF plays with a mouse.
:) If you are more than five frags ahead, drink one can.
Or go for an acessory - beer.
When they're paying the bill, they say what goes. Keep it private. We don't want any more censorship.
Nonsense. The U.S. government has already paid for much of the net's R&D. Other governments such as Canada and S. Korea have similarily made internet access a priority and haven't had problems with censorship.
Besides, ownership isn't necessary for the luddites to try to get their fingers in the pie. See COPA or the new round of "indecency" fines levied against television stations.
That doesn't explain why most new purchasers of mp3 players choose iPods.
I think we would be having an impeachment trial of Al Gore if he did these things and won the election of 2000. But since Bush is a republican its ok.
Or better yet, if we didn't have the 22nd amendment and Clinton were still president. He'd have been impeached, convicted, and been given a long prison sentance a dozen times over by now.
Don't forget to consider that Plame was hardly a secret agent.
Go read your own article. A senior diplotmat knew she was a spy, some friendly agencies knew she was a spy, and unfriendly agencies assumed she was a spy because she worked at an embassy. There is a big chasm of difference between that and her indentity being common knowledge. So, in summary: take your right-wing spin and shove it up your ass.
You clearly do not understand what the ruling was that lead to the Florida results.
What was "clear" is that the ruling was bogus. SCOTUS stopped the vote on the grounds that different methods were used to recount the votes. Except differing methods are obviously going to be necessary when you had as many different methods of voting as Florida had.
Would this fellow care to provide many examples of governments that aren't/weren't male dominated?
That argument is a red herring. Women do not need female members of Congress to have their issues represented. Examples: the Violence Against Women Act, when men make up the vast majority of victums of violence. Or that more money is spent on women's health care despite the fact that the average female life span is longer by several years. Or all the draconian child support laws, whereas messing with visitation rights nets the custodial parent (read: the mom) a slap on the wrist at best.
Strike" refers to when they refuse to leave and actively harass replacement workers.
Wrong. A strike is merely refusing to work - what you are referring to is a sit-down strike.
lol, as if you've bothered with the facts yourself.
None of my assertions required citations. Your's do. For example:
It happens *every* time. Name me one time it *didn't* happen -- a time when the union members merely refused to show up for work and never sued of threatend to sue the employer for hiring replacement workers. I'm not holding my breath.
The workers are certianally entitled to sueing if the company broke contract or labor laws. But back to my origional point: name me some examples of sit-downs where the workers got violent.
And what's your fetish with ratio to executive pay? If workers are enjoying an ever-higher standard of living, who the fuck cares is others are too?
Anyone who's not an idiot? You can hardly fault the company for paying dirt wages if the owner is also making dirt profits. You can fault the company if you and the CEO are both working 60 hour weeks, except your pay and benefits keep getting cut while he makes 500 times as much as you do while still getting massive raises and stock options every year.
Strikes are deliberately chosed to be at critical times when the will have management "by the balls".
No, they're usually done during negotiations for new contracts.
The problem though is that where such unionization or tactics become commonplace, investors learn to *anticipate* such actions and only create jobs there in which they offer wages discounted to account for such disturbances, just like, in the example you failed to grasp, why you would only shop at the described supermarket if they offered lower prices to begin with.
Or whatever crap your anus tells you to believe. I find it comical when people blame workers who (gasp) fight for a fair, livable wage for higher prices but not only ignore but actually defend massive executive greed. You want some facts, why don't you try reading up on the subject before someone mods you down, again.
Please.
No.
CEO's make pay and bonuses in the low millions where as the cost of an entire workforce costs in the low to mid billions.
And makes a few hundered times as much, on average. But there's not just the CEO - there's COO, the CFO, the board of directors, a gaggle of vice presidents, and the rest of senior management.
Whether we like to admit it or not, CEO's and other senior managers are special people with a special skill set.
Well...duh. No one says CEO's should't be highly compensated; it's one of the most demanding and stressful jobs one can have. However, no CEO is worth 300 times what his average worker makes, especially since upper management scews that average.
If workers are expected to do more for less, then management can do the same, or else it is total hypocracy. More so since a 20% cut to a worker making $60k a year has a much greater impact than a 20% cut to a CEO getting $20 million a year. If workers are getting cut while upper management is getting large raises and bonses, then that is completly inexcusable, butt-fucking hypocracy and they should burn in hell.
The problem with most anti-union arguments is that they are almost always based on annecdotes, and in your case, one sided and emotional ones. This is foolish, because we don't go around smearing ALL businesses as being bad because some cheat on their taxes and dump toxic waste into rivers.
Sorry, but if the market decides that all programming is worth is $8 an hour, no government or labor union is going to be able to change this, at least over a long term.
Which would be fine if the market decided a CEO was only worth $200, but obviously that's not the case. Wages and benefits have been cut for the middle and lower classes while executive pay has exploded.
All a labor union can eventually do is drive the company out of business.
Nonsense. There isn't a union that wont take honest cuts if it means keeping the business, and their jobs, alive. What they wont do is willing make massive sacrifices so the company stays afloat AND the CEO gets to keep his 20% annual pay raise and golden parachute.
Look at auto workers in the US. We will not be making cars in the US much longer because of labor costs.
Again, nonsense. American car comapnies are in trouble because Americans don't want to buy their vehicles. Detroit was too busy wallowing in the SUV bonanza and fighting regulations to make more fuel efficient cars, and got creamed when Katrina sent fuel prices through the roof. If GM had the Prius, they would be in vastly better shape.
Transportation has reached the point where labor will move to the cheapest location, worldwide. No union is going to be able to prevent that.
Rising fuel prices will.
LOL. The association between unions and organized crime is well-known.
Maybe if you just stepped out of the 50's. But if ALL unions are bad because of a few tomato salesmen, then ALL businesses are bad because of Enron and Wal-Mart.
I realize this may sound like flamebait, but _most_ of the people asking for unionizaion of IT come from the least skilled end of the curve.
Sure, but unions were never about protecting the elite. They are about sticking up for the common worker, and there's no reason you should have to be extrodinary just to make a decent living.
They get access to the CEO's laptop, they get to guard the salary database, the works. I don't know if managers would be comfortable having unionized employees in those roles.
And the reason for that would be...? Unions provide stability, but don't prevent anyone from being fired if there is cause. Which would you worry about more - the livelong union employee messing with company assets, or a burned out at-will worker who's just found out his job has been outsourced to India?
Unions don't have a sterling record for actually caring about what is good for the union members, only what is good for the union.
And what do you think unions are made up of? Members. How do things get decided in a union? Voting. Your statement makes no sense whatsoever.
But the only way I can see a union using "free market" means to get its way is to threaten to quit en masse if the employer didn't meet their demands.
Because that would be stupid for both parties. The workers want a job, the company wants workers. Actually quitting en mass wouldn't do either any good. This is what strikes are for - employees refuse to work, giving managment the option of negotiating or firing the strikers and hiring a new workforce.
They block enterances and refuse to leave. They harass customers and resort to violence.
Okay, how many times has this actually happened in the last 50 years. Besides, this is one of those boilerplate anti-union arguments out of a bad Jimmy Hoffa movie. Union X did bad deed Y in 19XX, so therefore...we shouldn't have unions! If we applied the same logic to business, we wouldn't allow any companies because they would all cheat on their taxes, dumb toxic chemicals into the river and fondle their secretaries.
First of all, wage growth was much faster in late 19th century America vs. Europe, while the former was virtually devoid of unions, while the latter was heavily unionized.
Of course you have economic facts to back this up, such as ratio of worker to executive pay, adjusting for different currencies and industries, right?
Would you really want to invest somewhere where your employees will randomly decide to just shut down at a critical moment?
And you seriously asked why you got modded down?
Your points are both correct regarding the 40 hour week and child labor - but in the modern day, unions seem to exist more to shaft companies in the name of helping employees.
Of course, that's why executive pay has remained mostly stagnant for the last 20 years while the pay, bonuses and pensions given to the working class have exploded. And good, hard working American CEO's have been fired and replaced with cheap MBA's from India. Oh wait, I think I have something backwards here.....