That's how it works...sometime you win (Staples) and sometimes you lose (Hostess)
And who ever would have thought that it would work out that way? You'd think Hostess would be a slam dunk to restructure and turn profitable! Twinkies? Wonder Bread? But Staples? In an environment with Office Depot and Office Max, selling commodities? That don't make no sense.
I think the only way you can fire union workers is if they breach contract.
I'm no fan of unions, but this is quite an exaggeration of how it works. How management is allowed to fire workers is determined by the contract they signed.
But there is a difference between firing and laying off (eliminating positions). I don't know of any union where you can't eliminate positions.
BIOS simply tells the computer to start loading the executable at sector 0 of the hard drive. That code deals with what kind of partition table there is and GPT and all of that.
Like drinking scotch or some beer, it isn't actually good until you know why. "This tastes like vile vomit because the peat came from MacDougal's bog, where druids have been fucking for millennia."
Well, yes. DSL is just how it piggybacks the data onto a POTS pair. The question is how the data is encapsulated on the other end of the DSL head-end thing. And where in the process does AT&T count up the data?
You can say that you don't give a shit about *their* overhead, but they can just as rightfully say they don't care about what the data is on their network, only that it is there.
Lets face it, once they have the infrastructure in place, they dont need to charge extra for it.
That argument is bologna. The infrastructure is never "in place". It's always being improved or repaired. And even if it really was static, where did the money come from to put it in place? I don't know what this stuff costs, but I do know it is expensive. They have to amortize the cost of the equipment purchase over the length of the useful life of the stuff. They have to pay the billing and customer service people. They have to pay for their downlinks. They have to save up money to pay for the next round of upgrades.
I'm sure they charge more than they *have* to, but it is folly to think that it is free once the wires are all plugged in and the power is turned on.
I actually think that idea would be fantastic. The ending of "Empire" was a classic "The End... ?" style ending. Lots of stuff can be built off of it. Then, after a movie or three and the actors get sick of doing them, they can just have the Luke, Leia and Han characters turn into 800 year old Yodas. Or have Luke and Leia do that, and Han can turn into a talking car.
But doesn't that giving just stay within the religion?
"No," says Brooks, "Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street."
These examples are all still giving to charity where the giver gets to decide the worth of the recipient. It's easy to give blood when they know it will go to someone somewhat like them. They get to choose which homeless guys to give to. They get to choose to give money to non-religious charities that are aligned politically with themselves. Sure, they might give more. But that giving doesn't help people who they don't like, and that's the problem.
1- It is not clueless to say they have to defend their patent or lose it. That's how it works. You lose patent and trademark protection if you don't try to defend any infringement you know about.
2- This isn't about patent, it is about copyright. They are different.
3- You can hate the current copyright laws, but that doesn't mean someone who acknowledges them is clueless.
4- Don't buy products from manufacturers who play this game. Do your research before purchasing.
I think the point is that he IS able to make the predictions that far out. Because he looked at previous races and saw how early polling was correlated with late polling.
I think the fact that he works for the Times is all the shouters need to proclaim a media conspiracy. The New York Times has always been the paper of record in the minds of a lot of people. So the best way to change the record is to start a campaign of denigrating them as often as possible.
The monkey wrench in that sort of result watching is that there is far more data available than just "what's the current result". If all the ballots of the state were shuffled and randomized, then yes, you could do like Karl Rove and say "but the current count shows Romney winning!" However, it isn't random and votes come in county by county. Each county has certain demographics that have been exhaustively polled. So when you look at the current vote count, you have look at where the votes came from and weigh that against the polling you've done. I'll use Virginia as an example because it is a simpler state: its rural counties usually go republican, and the couple of counties in the northern part usually go democratic. So results start pouring in, and they see that the rural counties are going for Romney as expected. It's 50,000 votes to 10,000 votes. Romney is going to win, no? No. Because there are 300,000 votes in Northern Virginia, and they are going to trend 200,000 to 100,000 for Obama. Even though they only have small percentage of the votes in, they know that because the rural counties are coming in as expected, the urban counties are going to as well. So even though they've only counted 20% of the votes, they have all the data they need to call it for Obama.
Yes. Even Reagan's massive landslide in 1984 was only 58 - 40 in the popular vote. 51 to 48 is pretty decisive in an environment where one can lose the popular vote and still win.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't blame the union for striking based on eliminating the 8 hour day. That's sort of a cornerstone.
That's how it works...sometime you win (Staples) and sometimes you lose (Hostess)
And who ever would have thought that it would work out that way? You'd think Hostess would be a slam dunk to restructure and turn profitable! Twinkies? Wonder Bread? But Staples? In an environment with Office Depot and Office Max, selling commodities? That don't make no sense.
I think the only way you can fire union workers is if they breach contract.
I'm no fan of unions, but this is quite an exaggeration of how it works. How management is allowed to fire workers is determined by the contract they signed.
But there is a difference between firing and laying off (eliminating positions). I don't know of any union where you can't eliminate positions.
Sorry chief, you are the one who is wrong. The x86 BIOS does exactly what I said. All the stuff that happens after that is handled by software on the hard disk. Look here as well.
BIOS simply tells the computer to start loading the executable at sector 0 of the hard drive. That code deals with what kind of partition table there is and GPT and all of that.
They also do something screwey with the boot sector.
A lot of the cell phones ban laws exempt "first responders".
Like drinking scotch or some beer, it isn't actually good until you know why. "This tastes like vile vomit because the peat came from MacDougal's bog, where druids have been fucking for millennia."
That's not what they are talking about.
Well, yes. DSL is just how it piggybacks the data onto a POTS pair. The question is how the data is encapsulated on the other end of the DSL head-end thing. And where in the process does AT&T count up the data?
All AT&T would have to do is not count the overhead and "charge" more for actual data. Instead of 250gb, you only get 225gb a month.
But I can see how the 12% of TCP overhead can balloon up to 20% pretty easily. Just look at the layers that the payload data has to get wrapped into to traverse the network.
You can say that you don't give a shit about *their* overhead, but they can just as rightfully say they don't care about what the data is on their network, only that it is there.
But the customer still has to pay for the crate somehow, because it is a necessary part of the transaction.
Lets face it, once they have the infrastructure in place, they dont need to charge extra for it.
That argument is bologna. The infrastructure is never "in place". It's always being improved or repaired. And even if it really was static, where did the money come from to put it in place? I don't know what this stuff costs, but I do know it is expensive. They have to amortize the cost of the equipment purchase over the length of the useful life of the stuff. They have to pay the billing and customer service people. They have to pay for their downlinks. They have to save up money to pay for the next round of upgrades.
I'm sure they charge more than they *have* to, but it is folly to think that it is free once the wires are all plugged in and the power is turned on.
I meant Return of the Jedi, not Empire.
I actually think that idea would be fantastic. The ending of "Empire" was a classic "The End ... ?" style ending. Lots of stuff can be built off of it. Then, after a movie or three and the actors get sick of doing them, they can just have the Luke, Leia and Han characters turn into 800 year old Yodas. Or have Luke and Leia do that, and Han can turn into a talking car.
And acorns are oak trees. Imprison all women who have had miscarriages!
But doesn't that giving just stay within the religion?
"No," says Brooks, "Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street."
These examples are all still giving to charity where the giver gets to decide the worth of the recipient. It's easy to give blood when they know it will go to someone somewhat like them. They get to choose which homeless guys to give to. They get to choose to give money to non-religious charities that are aligned politically with themselves. Sure, they might give more. But that giving doesn't help people who they don't like, and that's the problem.
The government is simply one way PEOPLE organize to help one another.
And yet the Democrats also keep on spewing the hate against anybody who dares to disagree with them or challenge their plans. Imagine that.
Guess it only counts as hate when you're disagreeing with a liberal, not when you're bashing rural, religious, old, or uneducated people, huh?
Got a cite for this hate-spewing you talk about?
1- It is not clueless to say they have to defend their patent or lose it. That's how it works. You lose patent and trademark protection if you don't try to defend any infringement you know about.
2- This isn't about patent, it is about copyright. They are different.
3- You can hate the current copyright laws, but that doesn't mean someone who acknowledges them is clueless.
4- Don't buy products from manufacturers who play this game. Do your research before purchasing.
I think the point is that he IS able to make the predictions that far out. Because he looked at previous races and saw how early polling was correlated with late polling.
I think the fact that he works for the Times is all the shouters need to proclaim a media conspiracy. The New York Times has always been the paper of record in the minds of a lot of people. So the best way to change the record is to start a campaign of denigrating them as often as possible.
The monkey wrench in that sort of result watching is that there is far more data available than just "what's the current result". If all the ballots of the state were shuffled and randomized, then yes, you could do like Karl Rove and say "but the current count shows Romney winning!" However, it isn't random and votes come in county by county. Each county has certain demographics that have been exhaustively polled. So when you look at the current vote count, you have look at where the votes came from and weigh that against the polling you've done. I'll use Virginia as an example because it is a simpler state: its rural counties usually go republican, and the couple of counties in the northern part usually go democratic. So results start pouring in, and they see that the rural counties are going for Romney as expected. It's 50,000 votes to 10,000 votes. Romney is going to win, no? No. Because there are 300,000 votes in Northern Virginia, and they are going to trend 200,000 to 100,000 for Obama. Even though they only have small percentage of the votes in, they know that because the rural counties are coming in as expected, the urban counties are going to as well. So even though they've only counted 20% of the votes, they have all the data they need to call it for Obama.
No it doesn't. Each prediction stand on its own. Statistical confidence is not the same thing as probability.
Yes. Even Reagan's massive landslide in 1984 was only 58 - 40 in the popular vote. 51 to 48 is pretty decisive in an environment where one can lose the popular vote and still win.