Unions are "bad" because they free the individual of responsibility.
Of being fired without cause, you mean.
The union mindset is similar to liberals with their reliance on government and on others to support them.
No. The "liberal mindset" is that any system should be as fair to the people on the bottom as it is to those at the top. CEO's make several hundred times the amount of the average worker but don't do several hundered times as much work.
An individual should study hard, work hard, and acheive their goals on their own merits. Your compensation should be based on work ethic, productivity, and position, not on political pressure and scare tactics.
Which guarantees you nothing in today's worker-expendable market. Besides, there's nothing about a union that prevents you elitists from climbing the mountain if you are actually as good as your ego tells you.
that's the thing I hate when it comes to unions, everyone blames the company for outsourcing or just outright closing, yet the Union that was a MAJOR factor in it just walks away like nothing happened.
Walked away without their jobs, you mean. Think back to any contract dispute you've heard of where a union was asked to accept cuts in pay and/or benefits to help a struggling company. Okay, now how many of those times has any mention been made of what cuts management is taking?
Unions are willing to take cuts if it honeslty means the difference between having lower paying jobs or no jobs because the company went under. See the cuts the United Auto Workers union made back in the 80's to keep Detroit afloat. What unions aren't willing to do, is do a round of bloodletting so the CEO can keep his 20% annual payraise. See the deal that fell through in the airline industry where the workers accepted cuts while management were secretly securing golden parachutes behind their backs.
A couple months later while still on strike the company said they had no choice but to outsource overseas if they wanted to stay in buisness
Of course they said that. But much offshoring has very little to do with maintaining a healthy business, and a lot to do with massive executive greed.
iTunes doesn't do full screen video, so you can't use that trick. =-(
Sure it does. Get a quicktime file playing in iTunes, right click on the video, and select "full screen".
Problem! I can't play DRMd files. The Quicktime API won't recognize the files, nor deal with them.
Sure it does. I'm listening to one of my iTunes-purcahsed Morcheeba songs in Quicktime Player right now. iTunes and Quicktime Player are just front ends, and one way people get around the "Pro" restrictions in Player is to use a script to tell it to play fullscreen.
Sounds like you just need to hack at it some more.:) Good luck.
For crying out loud, it is NOT the Federal Governments responsibility to 'protect' a city from a natural disaster. It is the job of the STATES, particularly the National Guard.
It's positively AMAZING how this attitude only became widespread among conservatives AFTER Bush and FEMA failed to act soon enough in New Orleans. I wonder if their reaction would have been the same if the exact same scenario had happened under Clinton's watch. Not to mention being absolute nonsense, because the Katrina disaster was and is far to big for any state to handle by itself.
Lousiana is one of the poorer states in the Union. How much would it cost them to have improved the dikes sufficiently to withstand Katrina, or to relocate it's population to higher ground? Are conservatives really going to demand that their state taxes be raised so that every town, city and county is prepared for a full evactuation following a disaster, without any federal help? Wouldn't it be just a little more effiecient to have national resources that could quickly be deployed to any state in the union, rather than leaving each state to itself?
What goes on to make this the worst crock in history is the fact that the GOP has run the last two elections on national security, while painting the Democrats as weak. Except that Katrina showed just how prepared the federal government was for a large disaster. And with all the indefinete dententions, torture, and warrantless spying, the Bush Administration still didn't know that an Arab company was about to take over some of the largest ports in the U.S. But of course, the Democrats look like they'll say nothing about it, again, and will run on the stump issues like Meritcare and perscription drugs, again. And they will lose, again.
When civilians carry signs that say "we support our troops when they kill their officers," gee, I wonder why we might feel that way.
Alright, so how many of those bumper stickers have you found to justify having such an attitude all the time? 5 million? 10? Because we all know you wouldn't use an isolated annecdote to justify jiongism.
It's that we'll be pulled out of Iraq prematurely because of all the hand-wringing pantywaists back home, allowing a radical theocracy to take over and thus mooting all the pain and death that's been borne by us over the last few years.
It doesn't make you mad at all that you were sent in, and over two thousand have died because of, discredited evidence? And our military presence or lack thereof is probably going to have very little effect on wether Iraq becomes a theoracracy and/or dissolves into civil war.
Put yourself in the Oval Office for a moment. You've got the head of the CIA telling you Saddam's got WMD's.
Actually, Tenet told Bush personally, in person, that the aluminum tubes and Nigerian yellowcake were discredited before the SOTU. Maybe it's time you were shipped home.
You've got the Mossad, German Intelligence, French Intelligence, and Russian Intelligence organizations also concluding he has them.
Wanted them, yes. Was active in manufacturing them, no.
The U.N. report says Saddam's goons are chasing inspectors away from certain areas, sometimes with gunfire.
Nope. The weapons inspectors declared that while sometimes uncooperative, Saddam had been functionally disarmed and was not involved in the manufacture of WMD's.
About 90% of the evidence indicates Saddam has WMD's
You mispelled "does not have" as "has". And besides, even if he had, it's completely irrelevant, because the war was sold on the idea that Saddam was an imminent threat and that we had no choice but to take him out immediatly. And in this, the Bush Administration was virtually alone, and all of their rationals have throughally been debunked (see the tubes and yellowcake).
Perhaps not against the U.S. mainland, but there's nothing to stop him from re-invading Kuwait or Saudi Arabia
Other than the fact that we destroyed his army in the early 90's, yes.
A takeover of Kuwait or Saudi would allow Saddam to use oil to blackmail the rest of the world. He could destroy the entire world economy if he wanted to and there's very little we could do about it besides a bloody invasion -- an invasion that would probably not happen because of the American attitude against massive casualties.
Right, just like the first time. Not.
You can second guess him all you want because you now have information he didn't have then.
No, actually he did.
Sure, there were dissenters back before the war who said he didn't have WMD's, but the vast majority of all the (formerly) reputable intelligence outfits said he did.
You have that backwards. Again.
Oddly enough, millions of Iraqi's venture out on a daily basis without getting shot, blown up, kidnapped, or executed.
No, they're just afraid they will be. Adjusted for population, Iraq sufferes a 911 an average of once a week.
Bush made the call on this evidence.
And has suffered no consquences for doing so. I have a question for you: what if we didn't have the 22nd amendment, and Clinton was still in office, and everything happened exactly the same. What if Clinton had rolled over for the Chinese when they were keeping those pilots hostage after their mig crashed into our spyplane (you guys always forget that one). What if Clinton had elected to keep reading "My Pet Goat" for 20 minutes while the nation was under attack, rather than giving his Secretary of Defense or NORAD a call. What if Clinton had used the exact same faulty evidence for war, and executed the invasion and occupation in exactly the same fa
Nope, not being politically biased; but going more on facts.
It's a fact that the GOP sponsor, Jim Leach, was clearly mentioned in the second sentance of your own link, but that somehow wasn't worthy of mention.
On the campaign trail kerry was claiming responsibility for it, that's the big reason.
That's how politicians talk. It doesn't matter if they are the sole sponsor or one of a hundered. See Al Gore and the Internet. Or George Bush when he took credit for Texas being the first state to allow patients to sue their HMO's, despite having vetoed that piece legislation as governor. Leach probably talked about "terrorist money laundering" just as much during his campaign; Kerry just had a bigger stage.
Heck even factcheck.org attributes it to Kerry and must be playing partisan politics as well since they don't mention anybody else.
Not since that page is specifically talking about Kerry's claims on the DOH and money laundering. It says nothing about Kerry being the driving force behind this legislation.
Maybe the sooner you realize that both sides are dicks the better for you
Where did I say Kerry wasn't a dick for sponsoring this law? And who was it again who forgot to mention the co-sponsor from the other party?
because it would appear that you might just be a zealot that can't let anybody on your "side" have a complaint against them.
Why was it "John Kerry's" legislation? Why not mention the House sponsor of the bill? Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the other guy is a Republican, would it?
There are plenty of ways to do that without shredding the Bill of Rights. For example, paying a modicum of attetion to port security so they know when a foreign country is about to take over some of the largest ports in the U.S.
I learned what the phrase "getting their cherries popped" meant from the results of another search on 'videogames.' God, I love the Internet!
Heh. I was once downloading game patches at a school lab to burn to cd, for a lan party. I was just typing in www.unrealtournament.com, www.starcraft.com, etc, and going from there. So I thought I'd grab patches for a Quake II based game, Sin, and loaded up www.sin.com in Internet Explorer. Dumb. At least there wasn't audio to go along with the dozens of pop ups that came up with the site.
No, not all Republicans are anti-science luddites, but the vast majority of anti-science luddites do seem to be Republicans. And they have a great deal of power within the party.
all the current Mac GUI apps live in individual 32-bit address spaces and have a 3GB limit.
Don't you mean 4 GB?
Intel processors have bigger physical RAM capacity than the 32-bit limit. You just have to count the width of the address bus on the FSB.
Are you talking about 36 bit addressing? IIRC, that allows you to have up to 64 GB in a system, though no individual process can handle more than 4 GB at a time.
I suppose you think the Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc. (name your favorite charitable organization) consist of a bunch greedy wankers because they only give to the "needy".
Except for your analogy to be accurate, the Red Cross and Salvation Army would need to pass out food and clothes with a pedantic list of restrictions on how and what to do with them, while at the same time crowing about how it's all in the name of "freedom".
If someone breaks into my house and steals one of my guns am I liable for what they do with it? No.
Don't be an idiot, that is a straw man argument. Are you liable for murder if someone steals your gun and kills someone with it? No. Should you be held accountable if you habitually leave your front door unlocked in an area known for breakins, while keeping your fully loaded shotgun by the front door? Yes. Not for murder, but for incompetence/negligence that contributed to someone getting killed.
Don't get me wrong - the government absolutely over classifies data, something I know perfectly well from experience. But, from time to time, it has been extremely important to keep what we know under wraps.
That's why I wish there was an amendment that mandated that all documents be declassified after a certain period of time. How long would depend on what was classified and if any lives are at risk. For example, all files on JFK's assasination would have to be declassified, whereas information on a spy living in Iran at the same time would remain classified, so his family would not be at risk of retribution.
These salaries drag the industry average upwards, creating data that would make it appear that most technology workers are underpaid.
Did it occur to you that it cuts the other direction as well? That is what "averages" are, after all. For example, the place I work at starts off college grads at about 25k, whereas they could go elsewhere and start at 45k-55k.
You should have challenged it. I know of a guy who was pulled over in my town for doing 55 mph up and down a 45 mph street. Problem was, the guys van was physically incapable of driving over 45 mph, and he brought his mechanic into court to prove it. Cop got chewed out by the judge.
There is a very big difference between post-Englightenment western Christianity and Islam. The fundamental one in that regard is that the west accepts the separation of church and state, Islam doesnt and that makes a big, big difference.
Oh? Where do you think the millions of Christians who want to keep "one nation under God" in the pledge and bring back prayer into schools come from? Singapore?
Don't forget the "hostile work environment" scam currently being used by Democrats and lawyers to eliminate anything in the workplace that might offend a person with extremely delicate sensibilities.
Don't forget the "hostile work environment" scam currently being used by Democrats and lawyers to eliminate anything in the workplace that might offend a person with extremely delicate sensibilities.
Slashdot Mirror
Unions are "bad" because they free the individual of responsibility.
Of being fired without cause, you mean.
The union mindset is similar to liberals with their reliance on government and on others to support them.
No. The "liberal mindset" is that any system should be as fair to the people on the bottom as it is to those at the top. CEO's make several hundred times the amount of the average worker but don't do several hundered times as much work.
An individual should study hard, work hard, and acheive their goals on their own merits. Your compensation should be based on work ethic, productivity, and position, not on political pressure and scare tactics.
Which guarantees you nothing in today's worker-expendable market. Besides, there's nothing about a union that prevents you elitists from climbing the mountain if you are actually as good as your ego tells you.
that's the thing I hate when it comes to unions, everyone blames the company for outsourcing or just outright closing, yet the Union that was a MAJOR factor in it just walks away like nothing happened.
Walked away without their jobs, you mean. Think back to any contract dispute you've heard of where a union was asked to accept cuts in pay and/or benefits to help a struggling company. Okay, now how many of those times has any mention been made of what cuts management is taking?
Unions are willing to take cuts if it honeslty means the difference between having lower paying jobs or no jobs because the company went under. See the cuts the United Auto Workers union made back in the 80's to keep Detroit afloat. What unions aren't willing to do, is do a round of bloodletting so the CEO can keep his 20% annual payraise. See the deal that fell through in the airline industry where the workers accepted cuts while management were secretly securing golden parachutes behind their backs.
A couple months later while still on strike the company said they had no choice but to outsource overseas if they wanted to stay in buisness
Of course they said that. But much offshoring has very little to do with maintaining a healthy business, and a lot to do with massive executive greed.
One glance at the covers was enough to tell you that these things were leading to the downfall of Western civilization.
You got that right.
iTunes doesn't do full screen video, so you can't use that trick. =-(
:) Good luck.
Sure it does. Get a quicktime file playing in iTunes, right click on the video, and select "full screen".
Problem! I can't play DRMd files. The Quicktime API won't recognize the files, nor deal with them.
Sure it does. I'm listening to one of my iTunes-purcahsed Morcheeba songs in Quicktime Player right now. iTunes and Quicktime Player are just front ends, and one way people get around the "Pro" restrictions in Player is to use a script to tell it to play fullscreen.
Sounds like you just need to hack at it some more.
For crying out loud, it is NOT the Federal Governments responsibility to 'protect' a city from a natural disaster. It is the job of the STATES, particularly the National Guard.
It's positively AMAZING how this attitude only became widespread among conservatives AFTER Bush and FEMA failed to act soon enough in New Orleans. I wonder if their reaction would have been the same if the exact same scenario had happened under Clinton's watch. Not to mention being absolute nonsense, because the Katrina disaster was and is far to big for any state to handle by itself.
Lousiana is one of the poorer states in the Union. How much would it cost them to have improved the dikes sufficiently to withstand Katrina, or to relocate it's population to higher ground? Are conservatives really going to demand that their state taxes be raised so that every town, city and county is prepared for a full evactuation following a disaster, without any federal help? Wouldn't it be just a little more effiecient to have national resources that could quickly be deployed to any state in the union, rather than leaving each state to itself?
What goes on to make this the worst crock in history is the fact that the GOP has run the last two elections on national security, while painting the Democrats as weak. Except that Katrina showed just how prepared the federal government was for a large disaster. And with all the indefinete dententions, torture, and warrantless spying, the Bush Administration still didn't know that an Arab company was about to take over some of the largest ports in the U.S. But of course, the Democrats look like they'll say nothing about it, again, and will run on the stump issues like Meritcare and perscription drugs, again. And they will lose, again.
Neither would Joe, unfortunatly. Better put out a call for Mr. Rodgers.
When civilians carry signs that say "we support our troops when they kill their officers," gee, I wonder why we might feel that way.
Alright, so how many of those bumper stickers have you found to justify having such an attitude all the time? 5 million? 10? Because we all know you wouldn't use an isolated annecdote to justify jiongism.
It's that we'll be pulled out of Iraq prematurely because of all the hand-wringing pantywaists back home, allowing a radical theocracy to take over and thus mooting all the pain and death that's been borne by us over the last few years.
It doesn't make you mad at all that you were sent in, and over two thousand have died because of, discredited evidence? And our military presence or lack thereof is probably going to have very little effect on wether Iraq becomes a theoracracy and/or dissolves into civil war.
Put yourself in the Oval Office for a moment. You've got the head of the CIA telling you Saddam's got WMD's.
Actually, Tenet told Bush personally, in person, that the aluminum tubes and Nigerian yellowcake were discredited before the SOTU. Maybe it's time you were shipped home.
You've got the Mossad, German Intelligence, French Intelligence, and Russian Intelligence organizations also concluding he has them.
Wanted them, yes. Was active in manufacturing them, no.
The U.N. report says Saddam's goons are chasing inspectors away from certain areas, sometimes with gunfire.
Nope. The weapons inspectors declared that while sometimes uncooperative, Saddam had been functionally disarmed and was not involved in the manufacture of WMD's.
About 90% of the evidence indicates Saddam has WMD's
You mispelled "does not have" as "has". And besides, even if he had, it's completely irrelevant, because the war was sold on the idea that Saddam was an imminent threat and that we had no choice but to take him out immediatly. And in this, the Bush Administration was virtually alone, and all of their rationals have throughally been debunked (see the tubes and yellowcake).
Perhaps not against the U.S. mainland, but there's nothing to stop him from re-invading Kuwait or Saudi Arabia
Other than the fact that we destroyed his army in the early 90's, yes.
A takeover of Kuwait or Saudi would allow Saddam to use oil to blackmail the rest of the world. He could destroy the entire world economy if he wanted to and there's very little we could do about it besides a bloody invasion -- an invasion that would probably not happen because of the American attitude against massive casualties.
Right, just like the first time. Not.
You can second guess him all you want because you now have information he didn't have then.
No, actually he did.
Sure, there were dissenters back before the war who said he didn't have WMD's, but the vast majority of all the (formerly) reputable intelligence outfits said he did.
You have that backwards. Again.
Oddly enough, millions of Iraqi's venture out on a daily basis without getting shot, blown up, kidnapped, or executed.
No, they're just afraid they will be. Adjusted for population, Iraq sufferes a 911 an average of once a week.
Bush made the call on this evidence.
And has suffered no consquences for doing so. I have a question for you: what if we didn't have the 22nd amendment, and Clinton was still in office, and everything happened exactly the same. What if Clinton had rolled over for the Chinese when they were keeping those pilots hostage after their mig crashed into our spyplane (you guys always forget that one). What if Clinton had elected to keep reading "My Pet Goat" for 20 minutes while the nation was under attack, rather than giving his Secretary of Defense or NORAD a call. What if Clinton had used the exact same faulty evidence for war, and executed the invasion and occupation in exactly the same fa
He never bothered to check Amazon, where the reference was readily availabile.
If your reference was the hack job "Unfit for Command", it was probably a good call.
Nope, not being politically biased; but going more on facts.
It's a fact that the GOP sponsor, Jim Leach, was clearly mentioned in the second sentance of your own link, but that somehow wasn't worthy of mention.
On the campaign trail kerry was claiming responsibility for it, that's the big reason.
That's how politicians talk. It doesn't matter if they are the sole sponsor or one of a hundered. See Al Gore and the Internet. Or George Bush when he took credit for Texas being the first state to allow patients to sue their HMO's, despite having vetoed that piece legislation as governor. Leach probably talked about "terrorist money laundering" just as much during his campaign; Kerry just had a bigger stage.
Heck even factcheck.org attributes it to Kerry and must be playing partisan politics as well since they don't mention anybody else.
Not since that page is specifically talking about Kerry's claims on the DOH and money laundering. It says nothing about Kerry being the driving force behind this legislation.
Maybe the sooner you realize that both sides are dicks the better for you
Where did I say Kerry wasn't a dick for sponsoring this law? And who was it again who forgot to mention the co-sponsor from the other party?
because it would appear that you might just be a zealot that can't let anybody on your "side" have a complaint against them.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Why was it "John Kerry's" legislation? Why not mention the House sponsor of the bill? Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the other guy is a Republican, would it?
but consider the mentality of the people.
There are plenty of ways to do that without shredding the Bill of Rights. For example, paying a modicum of attetion to port security so they know when a foreign country is about to take over some of the largest ports in the U.S.
I learned what the phrase "getting their cherries popped" meant from the results of another search on 'videogames.' God, I love the Internet!
Heh. I was once downloading game patches at a school lab to burn to cd, for a lan party. I was just typing in www.unrealtournament.com, www.starcraft.com, etc, and going from there. So I thought I'd grab patches for a Quake II based game, Sin, and loaded up www.sin.com in Internet Explorer. Dumb. At least there wasn't audio to go along with the dozens of pop ups that came up with the site.
No, not all Republicans are anti-science luddites, but the vast majority of anti-science luddites do seem to be Republicans. And they have a great deal of power within the party.
all the current Mac GUI apps live in individual 32-bit address spaces and have a 3GB limit.
Don't you mean 4 GB?
Intel processors have bigger physical RAM capacity than the 32-bit limit. You just have to count the width of the address bus on the FSB.
Are you talking about 36 bit addressing? IIRC, that allows you to have up to 64 GB in a system, though no individual process can handle more than 4 GB at a time.
When free software resources are used to make proprietary software stonger it certainly hurts.
That's RIAA logic. Failure to gain is not a loss, nor does it "hurt".
I suppose you think the Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc. (name your favorite charitable organization) consist of a bunch greedy wankers because they only give to the "needy".
Except for your analogy to be accurate, the Red Cross and Salvation Army would need to pass out food and clothes with a pedantic list of restrictions on how and what to do with them, while at the same time crowing about how it's all in the name of "freedom".
If someone breaks into my house and steals one of my guns am I liable for what they do with it? No.
Don't be an idiot, that is a straw man argument. Are you liable for murder if someone steals your gun and kills someone with it? No. Should you be held accountable if you habitually leave your front door unlocked in an area known for breakins, while keeping your fully loaded shotgun by the front door? Yes. Not for murder, but for incompetence/negligence that contributed to someone getting killed.
Now compare that to america.
So? No reason you couldn't have national ballots for gay marriage, war in Iraq, or restructuring Social Security....
Don't get me wrong - the government absolutely over classifies data, something I know perfectly well from experience. But, from time to time, it has been extremely important to keep what we know under wraps.
That's why I wish there was an amendment that mandated that all documents be declassified after a certain period of time. How long would depend on what was classified and if any lives are at risk. For example, all files on JFK's assasination would have to be declassified, whereas information on a spy living in Iran at the same time would remain classified, so his family would not be at risk of retribution.
These salaries drag the industry average upwards, creating data that would make it appear that most technology workers are underpaid.
Did it occur to you that it cuts the other direction as well? That is what "averages" are, after all. For example, the place I work at starts off college grads at about 25k, whereas they could go elsewhere and start at 45k-55k.
You should have challenged it. I know of a guy who was pulled over in my town for doing 55 mph up and down a 45 mph street. Problem was, the guys van was physically incapable of driving over 45 mph, and he brought his mechanic into court to prove it. Cop got chewed out by the judge.
Why. The link worked this time, as opposed to your crazy ad hominem.
There is a very big difference between post-Englightenment western Christianity and Islam. The fundamental one in that regard is that the west accepts the separation of church and state, Islam doesnt and that makes a big, big difference.
Oh? Where do you think the millions of Christians who want to keep "one nation under God" in the pledge and bring back prayer into schools come from? Singapore?
Don't forget the "hostile work environment" scam currently being used by Democrats and lawyers to eliminate anything in the workplace that might offend a person with extremely delicate sensibilities.
Riiiiiiiiiight.
Don't forget the "hostile work environment" scam currently being used by Democrats and lawyers to eliminate anything in the workplace that might offend a person with extremely delicate sensibilities.
Riiiiiiiiiight.