I looked at the union's website when the story first came out. I looked at the picture. The closest I saw to what you were describing was a couple of pictures where managers were standing (not entering, standing or leaning against a wall) watching the picketers (and smoking a cigarette in one case if my memory serves aright.)
I did not see any "pictures of employees who were crossing the picket line for the purpose of later harrasing those said employees."
As to the other claims, so far the only corroboration that I have run across is the company's assertion. Do you have any supporting evidence/references to these claims?
The article didn't make the claim that the union was "posting pictures of non-union members crossing picket lines", it was quoting the company's claim/excuse to justify their (rather clumsy) censorship efforts.
And for what it is worth, I went and looked at the pictures on the union site, and there are no pictures of anyone crossing a picket line. The closest to that is simply a couple of photos of two managers at one location lounging outside the door to the workplace, "keeping an eye on the picketers at the front door on 6th Ave.building in Prince George."
And I did not find any examples of Telus phone numbers being listed in my rather perfunctory scan around the site. Frankly, I rather doubt that the Union would be so foolish. Companies often claim that unions are fomenting illegal activities such as sabotage and intimidation. To put such instrcutions up on the website where the world can see it and thus be able to present evidence of these illegal activities postis and intelligence level well below that of most bosses. (And as Dickie used to say to Tommy, "That is not a compliment!")
And you are right. The company is acting childishly. "We're the boss! You gotta do what we say, and shut up." All too common, alas.
Caveat: This anser deals with Canadian law, not US.
About 10 years ago, a lady went to her bank with her statement that showed C$10,000 (I think) deposited to her account. She informed the bank that they had made a mistake. She told this to the teller and the branch manager. They both informed her that she was wrong and the money belonged to her. She withdrew the money and put it into another bank. (She also got the names of witnesses to all this.)
Shortly after this, (You know what's coming.) the bank discovered they had indeed screwed up and asked the lady for the $10K. She said, "No!"
Naturally a law suit followed and was fought all the way up to the Supremem Court of Canada. The court declared in favour of the lady, and she got to keep the money.
The principle of law that the Court invoked is (and I paraphrase), "You can't profit from someone's honest mistake, but if you're going to be stupid about it, tough noogies!" The success of the defense against the suit, in other words, turned on the fact that she had done her best to inform them that she was in error. (The witnesses helped to prove that.)
IANAL, certainly IANAAmericanL, but I'd go see an attornery and see if this principle hold in your jurisdiction. Sure as beejezus the bank won't tell you this, and your friend is not a lawyer.
You really didn't read the parent's post very carefully, did you?
You wrote, "And you'd trust the corporation? Moron."
I think that he was saying that he didn't trust corporations. I quote, "i'll trust the government long before i trust a business. And I never trust the government." Perhaps rewording it will help.
If I say that I will do A before I do B, and I never do A, then I will never do B. Because B is conditional upon A occurring first.
Substitute "will trust gummint" for A and "will trust corporations" for B.
(Actually, what I think is a hoot is how long a thread got engendered by your remark without anyone noticing that you were arguing with a person that agreed with you!
Stright up, boys and girls, I've administered Windows and Unix LANs and there is a heck of a lot less work in the general housekeeping of a *nix LAN than with any MS network. YMMV, but that is my experience. Which leaves time to do the really valuable stuff like figuring out load balancing, writing PERL scripts, researching, user assistance, etc. etc.)
Secondly, MS expertise staledates far more rapidly than Unix expertise. Every release of MS necessitates retraining (Primarily the LAN admin and Support, but it used to include a fair portion of the user community.) Things move, change, get renamed. In Unix, things are added. (Ya still wanna use PINE instead of Thunderbird? Feel free.)
Which brings up the third point. There are reasons in the Unix world for changing or upgrading software, but its not because I've been forced into another d*mned OS release!!
And so we arrive at cost. Most of the TCO studies I've seen that show a higher cost for Unix tools usually factor in training cost for switching to Unix. But this is to ignore points two and three above. Over the long run, I would expect the training costs for a predominately Open Source shop to show an increasingly favourable ratio to those of MS shops.
Not to mention the reduction in licensing costs.
So, the reason I would like Open Source to succeed is the reason I became a programmer. I like to make things work right! Gracefully. Efficiently. Cheaply. Satisfactorily.
And I'd have more time to help my clients and improve the system instead of spending the majority of my time just keeping the fscking MS LAN stumbling along!
(Additionaly, it would make my life far easier!)
--//-- (I note in previewing the above that I have tended to refer to the Unix world rather than the Open Source community. Still Linux is a Unix, and in my mind - such as it is - they are synonymous even if there are commercial Unixes and software about.)
From the article above: "The radio links that provide data communication between the trains and the control center are encrypted, but how long until a hacker manages to crack it?"
And how long, my fellow citizens, before some Evil Monster walks down one of the subway tunnels and plants a bomb on the tracks!! There are no guards at the entrance to these tunnels! Only a little gate that a child could bypass! Oh, the humanity!
Fergawdzsake! I see nothing in the story that would suggest such a possibility, yet the writer feels the need to Issue a Warning Against Terrorism!
(John 11:35!)
Get a grip, people. Do a risk assessment on the back of an envelope. Is this a likely possibility? Just because something is possible, it does not necessarily follow that it is likely. Quit panicking at minute possibilities. Suck it up and quit shying at phantoms.
(Just out of curiosity, has there ever been a time in the US where they are not worrying about something? Indians, labour organizers, anarchists, Wobblies, communists, gays (destroying marriage), the Mafia, terrorists, "Islamists", etc. Always something to worry about in the US, it seems to the non-Americans reading the American press over the decades.)
Swillden is right. In fact, that's what happens here in Canada with our Financial institutions. (And I know it is his solution - "bank . . . store your language preference in their database and then look it up when you swipe" - because you are only asked to choose your preferred language when you access your account through some other organisation's ATM.)
I would agree with you that anyone who rules does so by the consent of the ruled. If a man rebels, you may punish him, even to the point of killing him, but as long as he chooses to disobey, he is not under the "ruler's" command.
But if that is the definition of democracy, then Communist China, and even Iraq are democracys because the population consents to the rule. (Before y'all fling yourselves at you keyboards, I don't believe they are democracies. I am merely questioning what I believe is a flawed definition.)
In Canada, the definition of a democracy is responsible government. They who govern us must answer to us. And it isn't just the election every few years that holds them in check. We also have the fact that the Prime Minister has to answer to his caucus and his cabinet. They can depose him by several political means. He has to answer to the House of Commons every day that it sits and then some.
And who in the countries cited above in the first paragraph could say "Nay" to the leader. That's what made them non-democratic.
While I agree with you, the world reality in design is that existing conventions should probably be followed. If everybody has been putting "Options" under "Edit", and you don't; then you are asking your clients to learn a new location for "Options".
This is often referred to as "P---ing off your customers" and generally garners resentment. Much as back a number of years ago, we snarled at WordPerfect for its unique use of the F3 key for "Help".
Suggested reading: "The Design of Everyday Objects" (Originally, "The Psychology of Everyday Things"n) by Donald Norman.
(IMNSHO, every programmer should read/own this book.)
I agree with much of what you say. (Although you do have a tendency to speak of the purchasing market as though it were a monolithic entity. e.g. "People don't value quality and service any more." The market place is composed of many different kinds of clients; some more concerned about price than service, and vice versa par example.)
However, I must take issue with the statement, "A company exists to maximize profits for its shareholders and employees." The first semester of my college course in Business Administration defined the purpose somewhat differently.
"The function of a business is to serve the needs and/or wants of a market segment at a price that market is willing to pay."
The difference is a critical one. Your definition speaks to the reasons that cause shareholders and employees to commit to the company. I believe that you have fallen prey to a common fallacy caused by conflating the reasons that people have for their allegiance to the coporation with the reason for the company's existence.
It is an important distinction. Your definition *can* (Please note the use of the word "can" instead of "will".) lead a company into rapacious behaviour. If a company becomes greedy with its customers, it creates an opening for the competition. As you have noticed, some chunks of the market are price oriented.
The definition espoused by my college, on the other hand, keeps you focused on the client. Serve the client in a way s/he is satisified, you keep the customers you have, and probably gain more. Thus leading to increased profitability.
It is the failure to understand the difference that leads to such idiotic laws suc
Splendid rebuttal. What is a whoop is how you've suckered other pedants into the trap. As I write this, 4 out of 5 respondents who felt the need to comment on your amusing reply have missed the point. Currently, only xigxag (167441) got it, and came up with an appropriate reply.
Well done, fatphil and xigxag.
Special mention to Des Herriott (6508) who, although he missed the point as well, made an excellent comment on the inappropriate use of the word "loose" in place of "lose". Pity it wasn't better aimed.
"It takes a special kind of person to deride an international event based on the ideals of self improvement, national pride, and respect for other countries."
I believe the parent post was primarily about the coverage by the American TV corporations. The bit about the torch was an aside. (And I agree with your opinion on that.)
The problem with showing only events where The Glorious US wins is that it panders to a rather degoutant idea: that America Rules All.
Nor is Olympic coverage the only example of this refusal to let Americans see that any other nation might be an equal. American movies are notorious for changing history so that The Heroic Americans Rescue the World (All By Themselves.)
From a review of the movie "U-571" by Dr. Timothy P. Mulligan, archivist at the National Archives and Records Administration, specializing in captured German and related World War II records:
That Mostow
(director) falls so short in historical accuracy is not entirely his fault. In choosing a naval topic that conforms to Hollywood war film conventions, he is obligated to depict a handful of Americans battling overwhelming odds but inevitably victorious against a cruel, implacable yet flawed enemy. The real elements that fashioned victory close cooperation among the Allies, and the systematic development of their combined human and natural resources to produce an irresistible material and technological superiority do not translate well in cinematic terms, and more importantly do not reflect American popular culture's archetypes and self-images. [my emphasis] In replicating these conventions and populating his crew with familiar stereotypes (e.g., the young officer too close to his men, the salty chief petty officer who educates his superior), U-571 has achieved success, reigning for two weeks as the No. 1 film in the United States.
This paradoxical blend of bad history and mass appeal may concern today's historical profession, but future historians may well be indebted to Mostow for his snapshot of American values and attitudes toward World War II at the turn of the millennium. If not, they will at least be in his debt for a good laugh and a renewed appreciation of Das Boot.
I don't slag this meme becuase it doesn't give others proper credit. That's a moral question, and I'm always rather queasy about imposing my morality on ohters. However, is it an ethical position? Does it give proper credits to people you call friends and allies? Do you expect them to love and admire you when you slight them thus?
This attitude, I would also argue, is septic in that it deludes the American population into thinking that they are omnipotent, and that no one could ever be better or stronger or more clever than an American.
The ancient Greeks called this hubris, and they said that the gods punish it.
I was sitting in the bar with a friend of mine t'other day discussing word affairs, WMDs, political honesty, etc, and my friend said, he said,
"The only question is how Bush will steal the next election."
(No, he's not a Republican or a Democrat. Just a Canadian who has a tendency these days to wish he lived in New Zealand instead of right next to to the Good Old USA, Defender of Democracy and all that is Just and Right.)
And can anyone explain to me why it is so necessary to have computerized balloting? Other countries around the world do just find with paper ballots. Why is it so necessary to have the results Right Away instead of waiting a bit? What would be the harm, say, of getting the results of an election the next day instead of today?
Harlan Ellison said it well (and I'm depending on my memory here. Be kind.) when he wrote:
There are
rules to science fiction. And the basic one is internal consistency. You can invent a way to negate gravity, you can have ESP, you can have whatever you like, as long as it is internally consistent.
The problem is, if you break that internal consistency, you make it more difficult to engage in the pleasurable exercise of suspending disbelief. I think people are complaining of that more than that something is improbable/impossible. (Except for those anal-rententives, of course.)
". . . it's primary purpose is to make money so that the business can continue to exist."
The latter half of this statement is true, but I would disagree with the first half. When I took Business Administration at college, we were told in the first few weeks of commencement that the purpose of a business is "to satisfy the wants and needs of a market segment at a price that that market is willing to pay." You are conflating the necessity of survival with the reason for survival.
To put it another way, this is like saying, "The reason humans exist is to breath oxygen and produce carbon dioxide."
Can't speak for American law, but in Canada, "the form of payment can be whatever is mutually acceptable to the parties in a transaction, and this is a matter of private agreement between those parties."
The above quote comes from the Bank of Canada's website has a FAQ on the use of currency and what you use and how you use banknotes to pay debt.
Does the vendor/retailer have to accept banknotes or coins. Not really, and I suspect that the law is probably the same in the US since the majority of this law is common or case law. An exception is The Currency Act which sets out limits on a tender of payment in coin. The specific limits can be seen at the above site."
I have to interject at this point that my deceased mother told me that she had heard the broadcast. She thought the people who panicked were nincompoops. "There was an advertisement for soap or something every few minutes! Did they really think that if there was a real invasion that the station would still be playing advertisements? Nobody panicked in Canada!" Then she shook her head and muttered something about Americans.
Slashdot Mirror
I looked at the union's website when the story first came out. I looked at the picture. The closest I saw to what you were describing was a couple of pictures where managers were standing (not entering, standing or leaning against a wall) watching the picketers (and smoking a cigarette in one case if my memory serves aright.)
I did not see any "pictures of employees who were crossing the picket line for the purpose of later harrasing those said employees."
As to the other claims, so far the only corroboration that I have run across is the company's assertion. Do you have any supporting evidence/references to these claims?
The article didn't make the claim that the union was "posting pictures of non-union members crossing picket lines", it was quoting the company's claim/excuse to justify their (rather clumsy) censorship efforts.
And for what it is worth, I went and looked at the pictures on the union site, and there are no pictures of anyone crossing a picket line. The closest to that is simply a couple of photos of two managers at one location lounging outside the door to the workplace, "keeping an eye on the picketers at the front door on 6th Ave.building in Prince George."
And I did not find any examples of Telus phone numbers being listed in my rather perfunctory scan around the site. Frankly, I rather doubt that the Union would be so foolish. Companies often claim that unions are fomenting illegal activities such as sabotage and intimidation. To put such instrcutions up on the website where the world can see it and thus be able to present evidence of these illegal activities postis and intelligence level well below that of most bosses. (And as Dickie used to say to Tommy, "That is not a compliment!")
And you are right. The company is acting childishly. "We're the boss! You gotta do what we say, and shut up." All too common, alas.
Caveat: This anser deals with Canadian law, not US.
About 10 years ago, a lady went to her bank with her statement that showed C$10,000 (I think) deposited to her account. She informed the bank that they had made a mistake. She told this to the teller and the branch manager. They both informed her that she was wrong and the money belonged to her. She withdrew the money and put it into another bank. (She also got the names of witnesses to all this.)
Shortly after this, (You know what's coming.) the bank discovered they had indeed screwed up and asked the lady for the $10K. She said, "No!"
Naturally a law suit followed and was fought all the way up to the Supremem Court of Canada. The court declared in favour of the lady, and she got to keep the money.
The principle of law that the Court invoked is (and I paraphrase), "You can't profit from someone's honest mistake, but if you're going to be stupid about it, tough noogies!" The success of the defense against the suit, in other words, turned on the fact that she had done her best to inform them that she was in error. (The witnesses helped to prove that.)
IANAL, certainly IANAAmericanL, but I'd go see an attornery and see if this principle hold in your jurisdiction. Sure as beejezus the bank won't tell you this, and your friend is not a lawyer.
Wups! My Bad!
(I appreciate the irony to, reely I do!)
You really didn't read the parent's post very carefully, did you?
You wrote, "And you'd trust the corporation? Moron."
I think that he was saying that he didn't trust corporations. I quote, "i'll trust the government long before i trust a business. And I never trust the government." Perhaps rewording it will help.
If I say that I will do A before I do B, and I never do A, then I will never do B. Because B is conditional upon A occurring first.
Substitute "will trust gummint" for A and "will trust corporations" for B.
(Actually, what I think is a hoot is how long a thread got engendered by your remark without anyone noticing that you were arguing with a person that agreed with you!
Ah jes' luuuves SlashDot readers, Ah do, Ah truly do!)
Secondly, MS expertise staledates far more rapidly than Unix expertise. Every release of MS necessitates retraining (Primarily the LAN admin and Support, but it used to include a fair portion of the user community.) Things move, change, get renamed. In Unix, things are added. (Ya still wanna use PINE instead of Thunderbird? Feel free.)
Which brings up the third point. There are reasons in the Unix world for changing or upgrading software, but its not because I've been forced into another d*mned OS release!!
And so we arrive at cost. Most of the TCO studies I've seen that show a higher cost for Unix tools usually factor in training cost for switching to Unix. But this is to ignore points two and three above. Over the long run, I would expect the training costs for a predominately Open Source shop to show an increasingly favourable ratio to those of MS shops.
Not to mention the reduction in licensing costs.
So, the reason I would like Open Source to succeed is the reason I became a programmer. I like to make things work right! Gracefully. Efficiently. Cheaply. Satisfactorily.
And I'd have more time to help my clients and improve the system instead of spending the majority of my time just keeping the fscking MS LAN stumbling along!
(Additionaly, it would make my life far easier!)
--//--
(I note in previewing the above that I have tended to refer to the Unix world rather than the Open Source community. Still Linux is a Unix, and in my mind - such as it is - they are synonymous even if there are commercial Unixes and software about.)
From the article above: "The radio links that provide data communication between the trains and the control center are encrypted, but how long until a hacker manages to crack it?"
And how long, my fellow citizens, before some Evil Monster walks down one of the subway tunnels and plants a bomb on the tracks!! There are no guards at the entrance to these tunnels! Only a little gate that a child could bypass! Oh, the humanity!
Fergawdzsake! I see nothing in the story that would suggest such a possibility, yet the writer feels the need to Issue a Warning Against Terrorism!
(John 11:35!)
Get a grip, people. Do a risk assessment on the back of an envelope. Is this a likely possibility? Just because something is possible, it does not necessarily follow that it is likely. Quit panicking at minute possibilities. Suck it up and quit shying at phantoms.
(Just out of curiosity, has there ever been a time in the US where they are not worrying about something? Indians, labour organizers, anarchists, Wobblies, communists, gays (destroying marriage), the Mafia, terrorists, "Islamists", etc. Always something to worry about in the US, it seems to the non-Americans reading the American press over the decades.)
Swillden is right. In fact, that's what happens here in Canada with our Financial institutions. (And I know it is his solution - "bank . . . store your language preference in their database and then look it up when you swipe" - because you are only asked to choose your preferred language when you access your account through some other organisation's ATM.)
A benefit of living in a bilingual country.
Well that means that profit is about 27% of gross revenues. That doesn't seem too shabby.
Oh!, Oh, I see. You weren't talking about profitability. You were talking about quantity. Not quite the same thing, ducks.
But if that is the definition of democracy, then Communist China, and even Iraq are democracys because the population consents to the rule. (Before y'all fling yourselves at you keyboards, I don't believe they are democracies. I am merely questioning what I believe is a flawed definition.)
In Canada, the definition of a democracy is responsible government. They who govern us must answer to us. And it isn't just the election every few years that holds them in check. We also have the fact that the Prime Minister has to answer to his caucus and his cabinet. They can depose him by several political means. He has to answer to the House of Commons every day that it sits and then some.
And who in the countries cited above in the first paragraph could say "Nay" to the leader. That's what made them non-democratic.
This is often referred to as "P---ing off your customers" and generally garners resentment. Much as back a number of years ago, we snarled at WordPerfect for its unique use of the F3 key for "Help".
Suggested reading: "The Design of Everyday Objects" (Originally, "The Psychology of Everyday Things"n) by Donald Norman.
(IMNSHO, every programmer should read/own this book.)
Umm . . .
Inheritance?
I agree with much of what you say. (Although you do have a tendency to speak of the purchasing market as though it were a monolithic entity. e.g. "People don't value quality and service any more." The market place is composed of many different kinds of clients; some more concerned about price than service, and vice versa par example.)
However, I must take issue with the statement, "A company exists to maximize profits for its shareholders and employees." The first semester of my college course in Business Administration defined the purpose somewhat differently.
"The function of a business is to serve the needs and/or wants of a market segment at a price that market is willing to pay."
The difference is a critical one. Your definition speaks to the reasons that cause shareholders and employees to commit to the company. I believe that you have fallen prey to a common fallacy caused by conflating the reasons that people have for their allegiance to the coporation with the reason for the company's existence.
It is an important distinction. Your definition *can* (Please note the use of the word "can" instead of "will".) lead a company into rapacious behaviour. If a company becomes greedy with its customers, it creates an opening for the competition. As you have noticed, some chunks of the market are price oriented.
The definition espoused by my college, on the other hand, keeps you focused on the client. Serve the client in a way s/he is satisified, you keep the customers you have, and probably gain more. Thus leading to increased profitability.
It is the failure to understand the difference that leads to such idiotic laws suc
Splendid rebuttal. What is a whoop is how you've suckered other pedants into the trap. As I write this, 4 out of 5 respondents who felt the need to comment on your amusing reply have missed the point. Currently, only xigxag (167441) got it, and came up with an appropriate reply.
Well done, fatphil and xigxag.
Special mention to Des Herriott (6508) who, although he missed the point as well, made an excellent comment on the inappropriate use of the word "loose" in place of "lose". Pity it wasn't better aimed.
According to the translation, he was able to stop only after he had finally been able to wrest the "smart" card out of the ignition slot(?).
God, I wish I had mod points left! I wish I could mod it up to 6!
Umm. . .
An American team playing a team from an American empira^H^H^H^H protectorate?
Sure shoots my position down, I don't think.
Pick a better example, eh?
"It takes a special kind of person to deride an international event based on the ideals of self improvement, national pride, and respect for other countries."
I believe the parent post was primarily about the coverage by the American TV corporations. The bit about the torch was an aside. (And I agree with your opinion on that.)
The problem with showing only events where The Glorious US wins is that it panders to a rather degoutant idea: that America Rules All.
Nor is Olympic coverage the only example of this refusal to let Americans see that any other nation might be an equal. American movies are notorious for changing history so that The Heroic Americans Rescue the World (All By Themselves.)
From a review of the movie "U-571" by Dr. Timothy P. Mulligan, archivist at the National Archives and Records Administration, specializing in captured German and related World War II records:
I don't slag this meme becuase it doesn't give others proper credit. That's a moral question, and I'm always rather queasy about imposing my morality on ohters. However, is it an ethical position? Does it give proper credits to people you call friends and allies? Do you expect them to love and admire you when you slight them thus?This attitude, I would also argue, is septic in that it deludes the American population into thinking that they are omnipotent, and that no one could ever be better or stronger or more clever than an American.
The ancient Greeks called this hubris, and they said that the gods punish it.
No, you're not alone. See my reply to Casualposter.
I was sitting in the bar with a friend of mine t'other day discussing word affairs, WMDs, political honesty, etc, and my friend said, he said,
"The only question is how Bush will steal the next election."
(No, he's not a Republican or a Democrat. Just a Canadian who has a tendency these days to wish he lived in New Zealand instead of right next to to the Good Old USA, Defender of Democracy and all that is Just and Right.)
And can anyone explain to me why it is so necessary to have computerized balloting? Other countries around the world do just find with paper ballots. Why is it so necessary to have the results Right Away instead of waiting a bit? What would be the harm, say, of getting the results of an election the next day instead of today?
Just asking.
". . . it's primary purpose is to make money so that the business can continue to exist."
The latter half of this statement is true, but I would disagree with the first half. When I took Business Administration at college, we were told in the first few weeks of commencement that the purpose of a business is "to satisfy the wants and needs of a market segment at a price that that market is willing to pay." You are conflating the necessity of survival with the reason for survival.
To put it another way, this is like saying, "The reason humans exist is to breath oxygen and produce carbon dioxide."
The above quote comes from the Bank of Canada's website has a FAQ on the use of currency and what you use and how you use banknotes to pay debt.
Does the vendor/retailer have to accept banknotes or coins. Not really, and I suspect that the law is probably the same in the US since the majority of this law is common or case law. An exception is The Currency Act which sets out limits on a tender of payment in coin. The specific limits can be seen at the above site."
I have to interject at this point that my deceased mother told me that she had heard the broadcast. She thought the people who panicked were nincompoops. "There was an advertisement for soap or something every few minutes! Did they really think that if there was a real invasion that the station would still be playing advertisements? Nobody panicked in Canada!" Then she shook her head and muttered something about Americans.