I was speaking about both. I remember logging in and couldn't figure out what happened. I remember having a file with just 1 line. I suspect that Kubuntu doesn't deal with dircolors in a standard way. You know how man pages always have those disclaimers about certain features only being available with certain distributions? That's probably it. In short, to get colors, you have to understand dircolors, bashrc, and their relevant ~/ files. That's a lot of work for just colour, when most people should have it activated by default.
I could be wrong, but my.bashrc was deleted. All I know is that I tried to find it, and it wasn't there. Maybe I monkeyed around so much that I accidentally deleted it. In that case, I wouldn't blame them.
If we could get some ease of use out of something like "ls -a", then even that would be progress. I can't tell you how many times that I've configured dircolors. Every time I upgrade, it seems to disappear. It's like there is no standard way for it to stay put.
A Windows equivalent of Linux frustration would be something like upgrading a version just to echo a debug message during an autoexec.bat loading, but being forced to downgrade again, because your config.sys doesn't work in the new version.
Poor people do get back on their feet. There was 20/20 story about that, and movie was made about the same person. Many people do get on their feet.
If they can't get back on their feet without social programs, then they aren't really on their feet, are they? They obviously shouldn't have moved out from Mom & Dad.
Also, many social programs do prevent people from making money. The rules say that if you make a certain amount of money, then the hand out is cut off. Since people are afraid of the risk of losing their jobs, they make just the right amount of money to avoid the cut off.
Sperm extracted from my boner is a lot less painful to obtain than from your bones. Think about it.
Please try to be more careful next time. Bad spelling affects readability.
Yes, they have thought about it. Doesn't the fact that they're willing to go through such pain mean anything to you? They could have what they need in 2 minutes, but they'd rather do the bone marrow extract. Think about it!
Oh, wait. Are you talking about BDSM? Oh, okay. Never mind.
Yeah, I noticed that. In case, I didn't make it obvious, I'm from Canada [Surrey, BC]. A couple of commercials that come to mind are the Cialis & Viagra commercials. I don't mind commercials that raise awareness of the drug, and maybe even make a few exagerated jokes, but I hate it when they really go overboard, and make it hard to know the joke ends and reality starts.
I don't understand. I'm not an electricity expert. Why would you prefer to use USB to charge your phone? I appreciate the option, but not the requirement.
They are essential. What are you talking about?? Don't all distributions have that? In fact, my text console has a pair of text based eyes that follows the cursor.
A weird situation happened once. I was getting tired of using Linux, so I finally let my friend show me his Windows desktop and the command line.
When I saw the command line, I just stared and said, "How do you know where the text is going to appear?". He said, "...over there. The cursor!", and pointed. I said, "No! Don't you have eyes?".
If I understand you correctly, then what you are asking is to limit the type of advertising, and that sounds fair. After all, there should be truth and accountability in advertising, and this requirement for truth and advertising is part of the free market.
I think that you have a good point, however, I wish that you would push the other way, so that they government has less rights to purchase property and has less rights to seize money. People donate to reseach all the time. Why we just leave it to the good will of the donaters? I think that the answer is that we always want more. If 1 disease gets cured, then that's not good enough, because we always want more. If we end world hunger, then we find something else to feel sad about.
You're saying that they can't give more money to advertising companies? Okay, so maybe they could keep the money themselves.
While we're at it, we should limit the amount of technical hardware that they can purchase. We should also limit the amount of software [perhaps 1 terabyte or 1000 software packages, whichever is least; each bash script or JavaScript file counts as 1 package]. We should also limit the amount of computer experts. We should limit the amount of paper that they use. We should limit the amount of seats that they use, in case productivity increases. We should limit the amount of desks too. We should limit the amount of toilet flushes, as well.
I can honestly agree with what you said about prescriptions and kickbacks, but I can't understand what you would want to limit anything else. Limits rarely bring more products to market at a cheaper price. I can't think of any situation like that, off the top of my head.
Usually when we're talking about the oppressed worker, we're not talking about a one-employee shop. A lot of small businesses are exempt from many labor laws until they employ a certain number of people. But even with just one employee, it's still cheaper to hire a second guy part-time than to pay the overtime on the first.
I agree that smaller shops should be slightly exempt, when it's a mom 'n pop shop. The idea is that if they do something wrong, then they only screw over themselves, plus they are often just trying to make ends meet, and more rules only make them poorer.
I think that when we think about 1.5 times the pay, then it sounds more expensive than another employee, but aren't there problems there? Why aren't more companies doing this?
Thanks for commenting on health care. I didn't know that about FDR. I guess that I should have been suspicious when prices were involved.
I see. Thanks for pointing that out. It makes more sense that way. I still disagree with the attitudes of those companies, but at least that makes more sense.
Yes, I understand what you are saying. However, you needed to put 3 guys in the equation, before you could hire somebody else. It's like me saying, "Time and a half is cheaper than 2 employees.", and then you reply, saying, "4 employees, plus overtime are cheaper than 3 employees and overtime.". You needed 2 extra guys before you could justify hiring your 4th. I guess that you're just picking numbers for simple calculations. But then again, using the same logic, you couldn't justify hiring 3 new guys instead of 1 guy, and that is my point. The cost cutting measures are shouldered by the guys working overtime, and not by the consumer and/or owners.
Thanks for commenting on the benefits. Unfortunately, that's part of the free market, I guess.
Yes, I agree with your math, but I disagree with your attitude. I think that this correctly highlights the pay cut, whereas before, the company could hide those cuts, and say, "Well, look at how much we are paying you.", and continually nickle and dime the workers. Yes, it is lower at the end of the month, but you don't work as many hours, and it shows you just how cheap the company is. For sake of simplicity, let's pretend the %15 cut results in $12,000 per year, with no benefits. Are you going to want to work there? I wouldn't. It puts the company in a very awkward position. They could blame labour laws all they want, but people aren't going to work for the company. It gives the workers more negotiation power.
Yeah, I was thinking about that after I left. I think that it could still be cheaper at 4x and maybe even 5x for the first hour, because of Canadian labour laws. The laws require that employees get paid for 4 hours, as long as they show up when they are asked to show up. So, if the company only has 9 hours of work, then the per hour cost of those employees would be like hiring 1 full time 8 hour guy plus 1 part time 4 hour guy. At 5x, the company might want to still keep him because of training, security and proprietary issues.
It's truly amazing, how that final hour can be worth so much to a company. It just shows that it may be worth finding a way for employees to get paid extra.
I see what you are saying now, and agree for the most part. However, I was speaking about something slightly different. That being said, I'm glad that you explained, because it gave some perspective, and helped to clarify to me your point.
Slashdot Mirror
I was speaking about both. I remember logging in and couldn't figure out what happened. I remember having a file with just 1 line. I suspect that Kubuntu doesn't deal with dircolors in a standard way. You know how man pages always have those disclaimers about certain features only being available with certain distributions? That's probably it. In short, to get colors, you have to understand dircolors, bashrc, and their relevant ~/ files. That's a lot of work for just colour, when most people should have it activated by default.
Thanks for your reply, by the way.
I could be wrong, but my .bashrc was deleted. All I know is that I tried to find it, and it wasn't there. Maybe I monkeyed around so much that I accidentally deleted it. In that case, I wouldn't blame them.
If we could get some ease of use out of something like "ls -a", then even that would be progress. I can't tell you how many times that I've configured dircolors. Every time I upgrade, it seems to disappear. It's like there is no standard way for it to stay put.
A Windows equivalent of Linux frustration would be something like upgrading a version just to echo a debug message during an autoexec.bat loading, but being forced to downgrade again, because your config.sys doesn't work in the new version.
What about speration of state and educational institution?
Poor people do get back on their feet. There was 20/20 story about that, and movie was made about the same person. Many people do get on their feet.
If they can't get back on their feet without social programs, then they aren't really on their feet, are they? They obviously shouldn't have moved out from Mom & Dad.
Also, many social programs do prevent people from making money. The rules say that if you make a certain amount of money, then the hand out is cut off. Since people are afraid of the risk of losing their jobs, they make just the right amount of money to avoid the cut off.
My browser wouldn't render it, because it didn't have a DTD.
Eh, why did I bother clicking it, when I wouldn't read the article, anyways?
Yes, they have thought about it. Doesn't the fact that they're willing to go through such pain mean anything to you? They could have what they need in 2 minutes, but they'd rather do the bone marrow extract. Think about it!
Oh, wait. Are you talking about BDSM? Oh, okay. Never mind.
Yeah, I noticed that. In case, I didn't make it obvious, I'm from Canada [Surrey, BC]. A couple of commercials that come to mind are the Cialis & Viagra commercials. I don't mind commercials that raise awareness of the drug, and maybe even make a few exagerated jokes, but I hate it when they really go overboard, and make it hard to know the joke ends and reality starts.
I don't understand. I'm not an electricity expert. Why would you prefer to use USB to charge your phone? I appreciate the option, but not the requirement.
Honestly, what did Buster ever do to you? Leave him out of this.
They are essential. What are you talking about?? Don't all distributions have that? In fact, my text console has a pair of text based eyes that follows the cursor.
A weird situation happened once. I was getting tired of using Linux, so I finally let my friend show me his Windows desktop and the command line.
When I saw the command line, I just stared and said, "How do you know where the text is going to appear?".
He said, "...over there. The cursor!", and pointed.
I said, "No! Don't you have eyes?".
If I understand you correctly, then what you are asking is to limit the type of advertising, and that sounds fair. After all, there should be truth and accountability in advertising, and this requirement for truth and advertising is part of the free market.
I think that you have a good point, however, I wish that you would push the other way, so that they government has less rights to purchase property and has less rights to seize money. People donate to reseach all the time. Why we just leave it to the good will of the donaters? I think that the answer is that we always want more. If 1 disease gets cured, then that's not good enough, because we always want more. If we end world hunger, then we find something else to feel sad about.
You're saying that they can't give more money to advertising companies? Okay, so maybe they could keep the money themselves.
While we're at it, we should limit the amount of technical hardware that they can purchase. We should also limit the amount of software [perhaps 1 terabyte or 1000 software packages, whichever is least; each bash script or JavaScript file counts as 1 package]. We should also limit the amount of computer experts. We should limit the amount of paper that they use. We should limit the amount of seats that they use, in case productivity increases. We should limit the amount of desks too. We should limit the amount of toilet flushes, as well.
I can honestly agree with what you said about prescriptions and kickbacks, but I can't understand what you would want to limit anything else. Limits rarely bring more products to market at a cheaper price. I can't think of any situation like that, off the top of my head.
Predestination is the opposite, in that the outcome is inevidable.
Yeah, you're right. Live and learn. Fortunately, it wasn't an important job.
What I mean is, if they aren't giving health benefits to some employees, then why don't they just hire more without the benefits?
I think that when we think about 1.5 times the pay, then it sounds more expensive than another employee, but aren't there problems there? Why aren't more companies doing this?
Thanks for commenting on health care. I didn't know that about FDR. I guess that I should have been suspicious when prices were involved.
I see. Thanks for pointing that out. It makes more sense that way. I still disagree with the attitudes of those companies, but at least that makes more sense.
Yes, I understand what you are saying. However, you needed to put 3 guys in the equation, before you could hire somebody else. It's like me saying, "Time and a half is cheaper than 2 employees.", and then you reply, saying, "4 employees, plus overtime are cheaper than 3 employees and overtime.". You needed 2 extra guys before you could justify hiring your 4th. I guess that you're just picking numbers for simple calculations. But then again, using the same logic, you couldn't justify hiring 3 new guys instead of 1 guy, and that is my point. The cost cutting measures are shouldered by the guys working overtime, and not by the consumer and/or owners.
Thanks for commenting on the benefits. Unfortunately, that's part of the free market, I guess.
Yes, I agree with your math, but I disagree with your attitude. I think that this correctly highlights the pay cut, whereas before, the company could hide those cuts, and say, "Well, look at how much we are paying you.", and continually nickle and dime the workers. Yes, it is lower at the end of the month, but you don't work as many hours, and it shows you just how cheap the company is. For sake of simplicity, let's pretend the %15 cut results in $12,000 per year, with no benefits. Are you going to want to work there? I wouldn't. It puts the company in a very awkward position. They could blame labour laws all they want, but people aren't going to work for the company. It gives the workers more negotiation power.
Yeah, I was thinking about that after I left. I think that it could still be cheaper at 4x and maybe even 5x for the first hour, because of Canadian labour laws. The laws require that employees get paid for 4 hours, as long as they show up when they are asked to show up. So, if the company only has 9 hours of work, then the per hour cost of those employees would be like hiring 1 full time 8 hour guy plus 1 part time 4 hour guy. At 5x, the company might want to still keep him because of training, security and proprietary issues.
It's truly amazing, how that final hour can be worth so much to a company. It just shows that it may be worth finding a way for employees to get paid extra.
I see what you are saying now, and agree for the most part. However, I was speaking about something slightly different. That being said, I'm glad that you explained, because it gave some perspective, and helped to clarify to me your point.
I just sat there, and took it, and then quit. I didn't know that I could do anything about it. I thought that they approved of it.
I meant to say, "Maybe you could spend 2 days per month with your family, instead of an hour per *day*.".