It's admitting they might not be sustainable in the event of the entrance of another major player. But that happens only every few years, and it sounds like the managed to lock up all the major players this time around, so why not believe they can lock up a new player in the future? And in any case, even if it only works for half a decade, that's a huge savings for them, and ~12% of the employees' working lifetime.
One of X raising salaries (violating the cartel agreement) only happens if there are not sufficiently severe financial penalties to doing so, written into the cartel contract.
X entering the market for employees only works if they are in the same market (SV). It sounds like this agreement covered basically all major employers in the area.
Yes, but we're actually clearly under-regulated right now, hence financial catastrophe, severe environment problems all over the country, etc. And the Republicans want to go the other way, rather than, say, advocate for a more limited increase in regulation.
All they need is an out clause that let's them end the contract. There's no downside, they both want to be able to get out in the event of just such an eventuality. They just want to know when it happens.
If your firefox is a year old, you've missed like 3 major revamps of the javascript engine. The performance difference between then and now is enormous.
Well, considering the rather dire straights Microsoft is in (most of their earnings tied to dieing platform), you might want to consider Java. Databases don't seem likely to go away any time soon.
And yet, PHPs raison d'etre is that real frameworks were too hard to figure out. And ever after, as people struggled to deploy real applications on it, it has evolved towards being a real platform. Now that they're half-way there, it's now half as complex to learn as a real framework. Quelle surprise.
You'd think so, and yet their EULAs let them do it. So while it might not be in their interests right now, as soon as some PHB in the management structure sees it as a way to make a quick boost to earnings...
You can't escape an agenda, but a company could be run that sold services directly to customers, with a contract forbidding advertising / any sale of personal data. Their agenda could be to make money by selling you a service and not selling you out.
I think when someone builds the next facebook and offers an ironclad contract forbidding any sale of personal data, I'd probably be willing to pay $5 or so per month for the service.
I had really meant the question to mean: what population should society prefer a disease to run through, if it were to run through any, such that this population should qualify as 'unfortunate' compared to any other.
Refactoring tools have gotten really good. The chance of introducing a bug with them is close enough to nil (close enough that you are more likely to eliminate a bug than to introduce one). Plus, you're supposed to have automated tests to tell you if you've broken a contract.
They are leveraging their superior bargaining position to exploit my labor for less than a fair cost. They can walk away from every labor deal because there are millions of people begging for jobs. I have to hope I can feed my family.
When we have a TOE that fully explains the universe to the satisfaction of our scientists, and our technology is provably functioning on the lowest possible level of that TOE, and we have harnessed about 10% of the energy output of the galaxy, we can safely assume that any species we have not yet discovered will be weaker.
Are you a database expert? How about integration? Performance and scalability? Web? (It's been sooo many years now and there still isn't a good interactive web library... as a result of which basically every website sucks compared to what windows programs could do a decade before, so if you feel like a challenge...)
Prisons have enough sick prisoners to require a medical wing, it isn't 1 or 2: 1 guards to prisoners in the prison hospital, just as it isn't in the rest of the jail. Medical costs are already quite significant for prisons, a disease that kills them instead of just making them sick would definitely reduce long term costs.
Slashdot Mirror
I declined an offer which was too low. Had it been higher, without this cartel, ....
I'm a pretty little guy, and government regulation has benefited me plenty.
It's admitting they might not be sustainable in the event of the entrance of another major player. But that happens only every few years, and it sounds like the managed to lock up all the major players this time around, so why not believe they can lock up a new player in the future? And in any case, even if it only works for half a decade, that's a huge savings for them, and ~12% of the employees' working lifetime.
A couple of points.
One of X raising salaries (violating the cartel agreement) only happens if there are not sufficiently severe financial penalties to doing so, written into the cartel contract.
X entering the market for employees only works if they are in the same market (SV). It sounds like this agreement covered basically all major employers in the area.
Yes, but we're actually clearly under-regulated right now, hence financial catastrophe, severe environment problems all over the country, etc. And the Republicans want to go the other way, rather than, say, advocate for a more limited increase in regulation.
Well, it would, if it were correct.
I know, people who think having the government regulate where it benefits the little guy rather than the big are totally inconsistent idiots.
All they need is an out clause that let's them end the contract. There's no downside, they both want to be able to get out in the event of just such an eventuality. They just want to know when it happens.
So Google offered me less in salary than they might have without this agreement. I wonder if I could sue them for lost income.
If they sign an agreement, though, they can introduce financial penalties to case 2 and 3 that reverse the outcomes.
But, but ... this is capitalism at its very best!
If your firefox is a year old, you've missed like 3 major revamps of the javascript engine. The performance difference between then and now is enormous.
I don't think the average user uses adblock/hosts. And worse, those tools do nothing to protect you from the real privacy invasion.
Well, considering the rather dire straights Microsoft is in (most of their earnings tied to dieing platform), you might want to consider Java. Databases don't seem likely to go away any time soon.
And yet, PHPs raison d'etre is that real frameworks were too hard to figure out.
And ever after, as people struggled to deploy real applications on it, it has evolved towards being a real platform. Now that they're half-way there, it's now half as complex to learn as a real framework. Quelle surprise.
You'd think so, and yet their EULAs let them do it. So while it might not be in their interests right now, as soon as some PHB in the management structure sees it as a way to make a quick boost to earnings ...
You can't escape an agenda, but a company could be run that sold services directly to customers, with a contract forbidding advertising / any sale of personal data. Their agenda could be to make money by selling you a service and not selling you out.
I think when someone builds the next facebook and offers an ironclad contract forbidding any sale of personal data, I'd probably be willing to pay $5 or so per month for the service.
I had really meant the question to mean: what population should society prefer a disease to run through, if it were to run through any, such that this population should qualify as 'unfortunate' compared to any other.
Refactoring tools have gotten really good. The chance of introducing a bug with them is close enough to nil (close enough that you are more likely to eliminate a bug than to introduce one). Plus, you're supposed to have automated tests to tell you if you've broken a contract.
This post reflects a severe misunderstanding of what happens when alcohol addiction takes hold.
They are leveraging their superior bargaining position to exploit my labor for less than a fair cost. They can walk away from every labor deal because there are millions of people begging for jobs. I have to hope I can feed my family.
When we have a TOE that fully explains the universe to the satisfaction of our scientists, and our technology is provably functioning on the lowest possible level of that TOE, and we have harnessed about 10% of the energy output of the galaxy, we can safely assume that any species we have not yet discovered will be weaker.
But I do know what the statistics say it costs.
Are you a database expert? ... as a result of which basically every website sucks compared to what windows programs could do a decade before, so if you feel like a challenge ...)
How about integration?
Performance and scalability?
Web? (It's been sooo many years now and there still isn't a good interactive web library
Prisons have enough sick prisoners to require a medical wing, it isn't 1 or 2: 1 guards to prisoners in the prison hospital, just as it isn't in the rest of the jail. Medical costs are already quite significant for prisons, a disease that kills them instead of just making them sick would definitely reduce long term costs.