Ok, so the comment is dumb (if had RTFA would have seen they are launching to LEO, dont make me explain the implications, there are a many previous comments doing it). And then comes a dumber moderator and mods such FUD up ?!!??
They're not paying over time. Governments might be dumb enough to do it but corps just won't. So they'll find some way to not do it. They don't really need employees to respond to company emails outside of work time anyway.
A lot of companies will find it worth the money to pay it and keep on it. Others wont. It's fair both ways for workers and companies.
You mention the 1930s, but that was a time of great instability in Brazil, with a revolution in 1930 and then a coup 7 years later.
I'm not from Brazil. I'm from Argentina.
Then you mention the 1970s, the period of Operation Condor and military dictatorships.
Dictatorships that were supported by big companies. Ford Motor Company would single out to the government which union representatives they wanted taken out and the goverment dissapeared them. Same with big local companies.
Then finally you mention the 1990s, which while removing the military dictatorship, only did so because hyperinflation was just kicking. Then you have the period of dual currencies, culminating in a great deflation of one while trying to stop the rapid inflation of the other.
The last dictatorship here ended in 1983. We didn't have dual currencies.
Banks are not the champions of free market, and certainly not Americas. People are the champions of free market. Brazil does not seem to have had a period where a free market and stability existed together for any length of time. Remember that strong property rights and strong contract law go hand in hand with free markets, fostering trust that you develop is yours, and that agreements will be honored (one way or another.)
Sounds all nice, but a real free market is under many circumstances, outside of the political possibilites. Show me a big country in the world with real free markets. Even the US has strong subsidies/barriers for its agriculture.
. People are the champions of free market.
I kinda agree with that, I think we haven't seen much of a real free market around here. Has a lot to do with the free market proponents around here usually working on behalf of a big multinational company. But also, free market is very detrimental some times. For example, in the 90s we stopped inflation via something called "convertibilidad", and then lifted all barriers to imports while removing all kinds of subsidy. We saw that our railroads were not profitable. We closed them. Result? 20% Unemployment and a big bad recession.
How we got out? Devaluation to be competitive again, import tariffs, taxes on exports (possible due to the devaluation). The bad side was that people's savings got its worth destroyed. The good side is we got jobs again, and the state got money to kickstart the economy. With that money we are now paying for good state technical education, state technical R&D, etc... all things that have the potential to make our local companies more competitive. Then we can start lifting barriers and making the market more free.
Markets need protection while they mature. 100% free market policies are only good for those in a position of advantage.
Yes you are. We have lots of legislation like that in my country and you can ask for whatever you want in whatever manner you want on top of the minimum.
Well, while we wait for our south american countries to become as nice as Hong Kong, we have families to feed. And without regulation, companies have screwed the workers as much as possible. We've had very low regulation periods (aka the 30s, 70s, 90s) and companies didn't use that to create jobs nor make the economy flourish but to ransack as much as they could. Hey, even banks like Citybank and Bank Boston (champions of the free market?) decided not to pay our bank deposits back in 2001.
So what did we do? We realized that very oftenly the champions of free markets are big hypocrites and that they would screw us unless we set regulations. Its all nice to assume that you can stand up to your boss and demand better compensation/conditions, but here that has oftenly resulted in you becoming a good example for the rest of workers of what not to do. So, we have unions, and unions demand regulations. And thanks to that, conditions are better even for non union workers. And companies still do business here, because its still convenient to them.
As soon as you have way more workers than jobs, things get ugly for workers. Hence the need for government regulation, investment, etc... It must have been a bit over 50 countries that bought the "super neoliberalism free market" thing in the 90s. Most flopped.
It surprises me how a country (the US) that implements a lot of Keynesian (and less optimal, like military spending) measures is on so much denial about it. To build the interstate system it had to be shown as a military/strategic thing, because that'd be good, but making it just to boost the economy or give people more comfortable travel would be a communist horror.
As others have said, the internet has many "non average" users. Besides, what is this myth about the "NSA superpowers"?? I mean, the people that work there and code there are human beings that went to the same colleges as everyone else. Not only that, but the internet is bigger than the US. If there's one superpower US agencies have that is money.
Sherman was more comfortable, more reliable, had sight stabilizator, made less noise due the rubber tracks."
The one really important of those is the sight stabilizator, with reliability second. Way more important is what kind of hits the armor resists, cannon armor penetration, speed.
Altough really the question of what was the better tank needs to be qualified by: in which terrain? in defensive or ofensive role? etc...
Near Normandy, the best thing might have been a german Tiger. Lots of firepower, both agains tanks and infantry. In the plains of Kursk, the T-34 speed nullified the advantages of the Tigers and in some cases gave them an edge over them. And if you were taking Poland in '39, what you need is speed, range and good communications.
The problem with your arguments is that you give the US too much credit. Yes, the US secret services have had lots of involvement in orchestrating stuff in the past, but it seems you are taking it to a "no revolution happens without the US behind it". That's very irrational IMHO.
I'm from a country in which the US has meddled in the past and pressed for regime changes, sometimes succesfully. But here people make the same mistake. They think that just because the US has tried and succeeded at *some* regime changes, then it has to be behind *every* regime change/revolution. I think its very counterproductive to think like that, as its a way to perpetuate the myth of North American invencibility.
Ok, to clarify my point a bit. The idea is not to get shot. Totally the opposite, use the freedoms and advantages you have (like not getting shot for protesting) and do *mass* protests. Tahrir square, that was mass protests. Colombia a few years ago had protests against FARC: 5 million people on the streets, that's mass protests. I sincerely admire everyone who protests on streets, like the ocuppy guys, but for protests to be real political power you need *quantity*.
right, cause the chinese selling their trillion dollars for cheap wouldn't do a thing to the US?!??!?!
No, right now its economic mutually assured destruction that keeps the US-China relationship oiled.
Powerless? You are not.
Come back and tell me that after you get a big chunk of population marching on the streets and getting shot for it. In Syria people are powerless. So the government officials you guys elected don't act like they should?? Mass protest / strike till they are out of office. Until you try such things and fail you ARE NOT POWERLESS.
For a good example of that look at US "foreign policy" on Latin America on the 20th century. We've been a playground of tactics, social and not so social experiments, etc... School of americas used some of the French guys that had tortured people in Algeria as teachers for latin american army officers. Those army officers went on to run the dictatorships that kidnapped/killed thousands.
It seems US citizens are now questioning the basic goodness of their government. We stopped believing in it decades ago.
if it is a fake, then presumably there'd be no great loss in destroying it.
Oh please don't let this guy manage a museum. Lots of valuable works of art are fakes. Default is always preservation, never destruction. Trying to reason about artworks in the same manner as if they were chinese fake shoes is a BigFail (TM)
I'm a ruby dev and let me say it clearly: there is no silver bullet. Even in the ruby world Rails is not fit/best for everything (try Sinatra, fall in love). And there are things no ruby framework is fit for (See Twitter, and their sad (originally) misiguided history w/ruby).
There are a lot of non general projects/requirements out there. Watch out. For general stuff I would say yes, go with RoR and Sinatra. One nice thing about the RoR community is that it's very strong on clean code, unit testing (TDD, BDD, etc..), and web standards. So in that social way, Ruby devs have a strong incentive to become better developers.
different prices for Gas and Diesel fuel. Some countries even subsidize diesel fuel used for goods and mass passengers transport, while heavily taxing gas for cars.
it really depends on how easily a determined terrorist could come to the same conclusions of the stufy. If the answer is "pretty possible"/"much doable" then sharing the info gives us the chance to have more people / resources in more countries working for a vaccine. If the answer is "not in his wildest wet dream" then yeah, restrict it.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, so the comment is dumb (if had RTFA would have seen they are launching to LEO, dont make me explain the implications, there are a many previous comments doing it). And then comes a dumber moderator and mods such FUD up ?!!??
. it's going to make companies unhappy
I care if they are viable or not, profitable or not. I care more about people's happines than companies.
They're not paying over time. Governments might be dumb enough to do it but corps just won't. So they'll find some way to not do it. They don't really need employees to respond to company emails outside of work time anyway.
A lot of companies will find it worth the money to pay it and keep on it. Others wont. It's fair both ways for workers and companies.
You mention the 1930s, but that was a time of great instability in Brazil, with a revolution in 1930 and then a coup 7 years later.
I'm not from Brazil. I'm from Argentina.
Then you mention the 1970s, the period of Operation Condor and military dictatorships.
Dictatorships that were supported by big companies. Ford Motor Company would single out to the government which union representatives they wanted taken out and the goverment dissapeared them. Same with big local companies.
Then finally you mention the 1990s, which while removing the military dictatorship, only did so because hyperinflation was just kicking. Then you have the period of dual currencies, culminating in a great deflation of one while trying to stop the rapid inflation of the other.
The last dictatorship here ended in 1983. We didn't have dual currencies.
Banks are not the champions of free market, and certainly not Americas. People are the champions of free market. Brazil does not seem to have had a period where a free market and stability existed together for any length of time. Remember that strong property rights and strong contract law go hand in hand with free markets, fostering trust that you develop is yours, and that agreements will be honored (one way or another.)
Sounds all nice, but a real free market is under many circumstances, outside of the political possibilites. Show me a big country in the world with real free markets. Even the US has strong subsidies/barriers for its agriculture.
. People are the champions of free market.
I kinda agree with that, I think we haven't seen much of a real free market around here. Has a lot to do with the free market proponents around here usually working on behalf of a big multinational company. But also, free market is very detrimental some times. For example, in the 90s we stopped inflation via something called "convertibilidad", and then lifted all barriers to imports while removing all kinds of subsidy. We saw that our railroads were not profitable. We closed them. Result? 20% Unemployment and a big bad recession. How we got out? Devaluation to be competitive again, import tariffs, taxes on exports (possible due to the devaluation). The bad side was that people's savings got its worth destroyed. The good side is we got jobs again, and the state got money to kickstart the economy. With that money we are now paying for good state technical education, state technical R&D, etc... all things that have the potential to make our local companies more competitive. Then we can start lifting barriers and making the market more free. Markets need protection while they mature. 100% free market policies are only good for those in a position of advantage.
Yes you are. We have lots of legislation like that in my country and you can ask for whatever you want in whatever manner you want on top of the minimum.
Well, while we wait for our south american countries to become as nice as Hong Kong, we have families to feed. And without regulation, companies have screwed the workers as much as possible. We've had very low regulation periods (aka the 30s, 70s, 90s) and companies didn't use that to create jobs nor make the economy flourish but to ransack as much as they could. Hey, even banks like Citybank and Bank Boston (champions of the free market?) decided not to pay our bank deposits back in 2001. So what did we do? We realized that very oftenly the champions of free markets are big hypocrites and that they would screw us unless we set regulations. Its all nice to assume that you can stand up to your boss and demand better compensation/conditions, but here that has oftenly resulted in you becoming a good example for the rest of workers of what not to do. So, we have unions, and unions demand regulations. And thanks to that, conditions are better even for non union workers. And companies still do business here, because its still convenient to them. As soon as you have way more workers than jobs, things get ugly for workers. Hence the need for government regulation, investment, etc... It must have been a bit over 50 countries that bought the "super neoliberalism free market" thing in the 90s. Most flopped. It surprises me how a country (the US) that implements a lot of Keynesian (and less optimal, like military spending) measures is on so much denial about it. To build the interstate system it had to be shown as a military/strategic thing, because that'd be good, but making it just to boost the economy or give people more comfortable travel would be a communist horror.
No, you are free to ask for more. What this legislation establishes is the minimum. Nobody is banning higher overtime pay.
As others have said, the internet has many "non average" users. Besides, what is this myth about the "NSA superpowers"?? I mean, the people that work there and code there are human beings that went to the same colleges as everyone else. Not only that, but the internet is bigger than the US. If there's one superpower US agencies have that is money.
+1
Sherman was more comfortable, more reliable, had sight stabilizator, made less noise due the rubber tracks."
The one really important of those is the sight stabilizator, with reliability second. Way more important is what kind of hits the armor resists, cannon armor penetration, speed. Altough really the question of what was the better tank needs to be qualified by: in which terrain? in defensive or ofensive role? etc... Near Normandy, the best thing might have been a german Tiger. Lots of firepower, both agains tanks and infantry. In the plains of Kursk, the T-34 speed nullified the advantages of the Tigers and in some cases gave them an edge over them. And if you were taking Poland in '39, what you need is speed, range and good communications.
The problem with your arguments is that you give the US too much credit. Yes, the US secret services have had lots of involvement in orchestrating stuff in the past, but it seems you are taking it to a "no revolution happens without the US behind it". That's very irrational IMHO. I'm from a country in which the US has meddled in the past and pressed for regime changes, sometimes succesfully. But here people make the same mistake. They think that just because the US has tried and succeeded at *some* regime changes, then it has to be behind *every* regime change/revolution. I think its very counterproductive to think like that, as its a way to perpetuate the myth of North American invencibility.
Ok, to clarify my point a bit. The idea is not to get shot. Totally the opposite, use the freedoms and advantages you have (like not getting shot for protesting) and do *mass* protests. Tahrir square, that was mass protests. Colombia a few years ago had protests against FARC: 5 million people on the streets, that's mass protests. I sincerely admire everyone who protests on streets, like the ocuppy guys, but for protests to be real political power you need *quantity*.
I am. Occupy is a good start. It needs more people.
right, cause the chinese selling their trillion dollars for cheap wouldn't do a thing to the US?!??!?! No, right now its economic mutually assured destruction that keeps the US-China relationship oiled.
Powerless? You are not. Come back and tell me that after you get a big chunk of population marching on the streets and getting shot for it. In Syria people are powerless. So the government officials you guys elected don't act like they should?? Mass protest / strike till they are out of office. Until you try such things and fail you ARE NOT POWERLESS.
For a good example of that look at US "foreign policy" on Latin America on the 20th century. We've been a playground of tactics, social and not so social experiments, etc... School of americas used some of the French guys that had tortured people in Algeria as teachers for latin american army officers. Those army officers went on to run the dictatorships that kidnapped/killed thousands. It seems US citizens are now questioning the basic goodness of their government. We stopped believing in it decades ago.
how is such non information/flamebait modded "3"?!?
this is something that has always surprised me about the US legal system. Here in Argentina you can't take away any such rights by contract.
if it is a fake, then presumably there'd be no great loss in destroying it.
Oh please don't let this guy manage a museum. Lots of valuable works of art are fakes. Default is always preservation, never destruction. Trying to reason about artworks in the same manner as if they were chinese fake shoes is a BigFail (TM)
+1 to any fiction by Borges. Try "Ficciones" and "El aleph". The mind trip those tales cause makes most sci-fi pale in comparison.
No. What's estimated is mass. not weight.
I'm a ruby dev and let me say it clearly: there is no silver bullet. Even in the ruby world Rails is not fit/best for everything (try Sinatra, fall in love). And there are things no ruby framework is fit for (See Twitter, and their sad (originally) misiguided history w/ruby).
There are a lot of non general projects/requirements out there. Watch out. For general stuff I would say yes, go with RoR and Sinatra. One nice thing about the RoR community is that it's very strong on clean code, unit testing (TDD, BDD, etc..), and web standards. So in that social way, Ruby devs have a strong incentive to become better developers.
different prices for Gas and Diesel fuel. Some countries even subsidize diesel fuel used for goods and mass passengers transport, while heavily taxing gas for cars.
how is the likeness of the numbers showing up making them less random? 7, 3 is as random as 494592349943, 2.5
it really depends on how easily a determined terrorist could come to the same conclusions of the stufy. If the answer is "pretty possible"/"much doable" then sharing the info gives us the chance to have more people / resources in more countries working for a vaccine. If the answer is "not in his wildest wet dream" then yeah, restrict it.