Then by this logic, every cable company violates these net neutrality terms by bundling services.
Whatever... we'll see. I hope it works out well... I really do. I just would think everyone had been fucked in the ass enough times to not get all starry eyed because the politicians swore this time it would be different.
These new FCC regs that are 300 pages long... have you read them? Well basically no one has. And to find out what is in them... we'll have to wait for them to be implemented. So have fun with that. Because I'm sure the ISPs didn't sneak some fucked up provisions in there via their lobbyists. Right? Exactly.
There are lots of articles on the subject. The ISP monopolies tend to get exclusive agreements in cities in exchange for giving free internet to schools or some other bullshit. And in return for that, the entire fucking city becomes at best a duopoly. That is why the duopologies reign. Because you are literally legally forbidden to compete with them.
And to clarify... I mean running my own fucking cable not sharing their broken down over priced under funded infrastructure.
You're making a chicken and egg argument. You're implying the unions saved us from a communist revolution when often as not the unions had communist alliances and actively spread communist dogma. Several of the unions far from stopping a communist revolution seemed to want one.
So that's fine.
The most apt thing I can say here is to tell you something they used to say about Soviet Russia:
"The future is always the same. It is the past that keeps changing."
From my perspective you're changing how you remember history to keep your ideology's image of self perfection intact. While of course the future is likely whatever your ideal society happens to be...
Am I wrong, comrade? Neither of us will ever know. If I'm right then you're so twisted by your own cognitive dissonance that you wouldn't know yourself. And if I'm wrong then perhaps I am... either way... we can't resolve this issue outside of a psych-lab.
Which claim would you liked backed up and with what sort of evidence?
See, this is where I'm going to stand firm... I have had a lot of discussions on the internet where someone will ask for evidence not to honestly discuss the issue but as a rhetorical device to basically wear the opposition out. The idea being to get the opposition to work really hard, get them running around in circles, and then when all is provided... reject all the evidence arbitrarily.
So since I don't know you, I don't know what your intentions are with that request. My default assumption is that I assume people are trolling if they're not constructive and generally rude. In my opinion you've been neither constructive nor especially polite. And that being the case I'm simply being cautious about wasting my time providing evidence in a discussion you probably aren't honestly engaging in in the first place.
So here is what I want... I want you to tell me specifically what you want proof of and the form of that proof. That way, if I deliver... you'll have little rhetorical ground to reject it given that it will have met your own stated standards.
They're already doing quite well in those government committees... and really all it takes to grease your way through most of those is some votes and some campaign contributions... that or sound arguments if they're not already bribed or looking for one.
Either way... I wouldn't count on it. Its coming. You can try to fight the future if you like... but its a bit like trying to stop the tide by slapping at it with your open hand.
As to unions stopping a communist revolution... I find that argument lacking in credibility. Especially since in places where the unions were the strongest they seem the most inclined to communism while places where they are the weakest are the least inclined to communism.
This strikes me as a bug being rebranded as a feature. Come on. You can do better.
One of the things that is especially amusing about the communist revolution theory that marx threw out is that it doesn't make any sense in the context of history.
Marx was quite good at analyzing EXISTING economic models but his grasp of human psychology, anthropology, culture, history, etc was not terribly good. Those that believe in a more communal life style would do well to start from scratch ideally with some people at the center of your group that understand what they're talking about a bit better. Marx and Marxist theory is generally not very credible if you analyze it with a clear eye.
This notion for example that you'll get some great uprising of workers forgets that workers have been abused far worse than that over time and while there are rebellions they don't ever lead to some communal state.
What is more, communal social arrangements have been tried repeatedly. Famously in one of the first English colonies it was tried. The name of the colony slips my mind at this moment, but they tried to go fully communal. They had a universal commons that everyone could work as much or as little as they wanted. Property rights were pretty lose. Sounded nice... only the colony nearly starved to death because there was no incentive to work. You got the same share of food whether you worked or not so why work?
Anyway, they shifted to a more traditional relationship where people owned property, worked that property, and traded for whatever else they wanted. If you didn't work... then you didn't eat. The colony was saved and ultimately became quite prosperous.
The whole communist/marxist system is at best ignorant. And so I don't especially fear it beyond being subjected to it by force by either ignorant people or tyrants exploiting the ignorance of people to build armies and subjugate people for their own profit.
Doubtless you disagree... that's super. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on that one, chum.
In regards to your statement that unions sometimes do good things, I didn't argue otherwise. Since you are suggesting that is my argument, you are attempting a strawman of my argument. That is either a misunderstanding on your part or a pointless rhetorical deception. Strawmanning works when you're debating before idiots or you're a politician arguing something for voters... which is sort of the same thing. But strawmanning doesn't work one on one which is what this is right now. I know what i said and I know what my argument is so there's no value in strawmanning me. Don't do it. It only serves to irritate me while poisoning the rhetorical well. I'm going to be less likely to extend you common courtesy if you behave that way.
As to your citation about some silly person playing the race card inappropriately... that is closer to what I'm talking about. You don't want to poison the relationship.
In the case of your hospital, it sounds like management was incompetent. And incompetence is generally problematic. To a large extent, I am arguing that the teamsters have a history of incompetence in negotiations BECAUSE they poison worker management relations unnecessarily. They have a history of it. And doing that with Google and Apple is poking dragons with sticks.
The price of organizing labor between industries to create national movements is that you'll create a national labor environment that is largely synchronized between many different industries. And as a result, it shouldn't surprise you that your collective action has a collective response.
If you cause a problem at lots of different companies why would it surprise you that lots of companies would seek to solve those problems in similar ways.
As to the teamster negociator being a jerk... NO.
He was not a jerk. If he showed up and JUST acted like an asshole that would be one thing. Companies deal with assholes all the time and while they don't like it... it isn't especially a business problem. You just suck it up and deal with him until the deal is signed and then you don't have to talk to him again for a few years. No big deal.
The problem was not that he was an asshole or rude. The problem was that he was implying illegal threats of violence, sabotage, vandalism, and quite legal but ultimately unacceptable extortion. In the case of the illegal things he implied that was basically a declaration that they wouldn't follow their contract if they wanted leverage. That means the contract itself loses value. The work slowdowns for example are done because they're not technically strikes and they have agreed not to do strikes in most cases. So they do a work slow down instead. From the perspective of the company, a slow down and a strike isn't that different. Deadlines are not met as a result. And any union that does a slowdown is basically failing to live up to their agreements. All the rabid unions love their strikes and slow downs. And the non-rabid unions don't do them ever. Because they know it poisons the relationship between the union and management. Its dumb.
The last thing you want to do as an employee or provider of anything is to spoil the relationship between you the seller of labor or service or goods and your customer which is buying your labor or service or goods. A union pissing all over management makes about as much sense as as the place I go to buy my food every so often calling me personally an asshole. I mean... I don't have to buy food there.
And the union gets away with that situation only so long as they do because they have labor monopolies. So its like me going to the store to buy food and there is ONLY one store to buy food at... so I just have to deal with the assholes at the company calling me names or otherwise treating me poorly.
Your belief that it makes sense for the union to adopt an adversarial relationship with the companies is rooted in a general misunderstanding as to the relationship between sellers of labor and buyers of labor. You want to ask for a higher price? Okay. That's fine. But don't try to take away my ability to shop around and try to get a lower price. No one deserves a monopoly. And that includes labor. If I want to ask around and try and get a better price then don't call the people that take my offer "Scabs" or whatever. That's fucked up. Yeah, their taking my offer undermines your bargaining position but your monopolistic leverage on a company isn't reasonable. You don't deserve a monopoly. No one does.
You're confusing the membership with the leadership. That's like confusing the average american with the american government.
Can you see why that's dumb? I hope so.
The union membership are just normal people and I don't bare any ill will to any of them. Their leadership is about as crazy as a bag of greased weasels.
And what magical powers would they use to stop such a thing? Their lobbying power is directly proportional to their ability to deliver votes and campaign contributions. Since their relevance TO politicians has been falling exponentially for years... good luck with that little plan.
Remember how NAFTA happened despite their personal hatred of the idea? Remember how the Keystone pipeline was shut down despite most of the labor unions actually wanting it because it meant jobs?
Their power in Washington at this point has dried up. Live by the bribe and die by the bribe. Their ability to bribe politicians into doing what they want as eroded massively. While the ability of these tech companies to get what they want has expanded MASSIVELY over the last few years. Mostly because they realized they needed to send money to washington or they'd get fucked over by rivals or anyone. Its something of an extortion racket by the politicians. Contribute to my campaign or I'll pass some regulation that will fuck up everything for you. So the tech companies pay with everyone else.
So... if you want to make threats of power politics... you can't back them up.
Sure I did. I said that if the teamsters put a stick in Apple and Google's eye those companies will be more inclined to accelerate their driverless car programs which strategically threaten the teamsters.
My argument was that it is not in the strategic interests of their members to annoy companies that sooner or later will INEVITABLY make many of their jobs obsolete. Annoying them simply makes something that WILL happen eventually happen sooner.
That is my argument. It was entirely clear and obvious to anyone that actually knows how to take apart natural language and reconstruct "words" into informal symbolic logic. Which logical people have been doing for thousands of years if often unconsciously.
Now... kindly piss off. You're officially too stupid to have an adult conversation.
You seem to think these guys are always on the right side of anything. As if all you need to be right is for someone you don't like for no reason to not be happy about it.
If people at the top of the corporate world learn anything it is that you don't let yourself be intimidated. Someone growls at you and you either render them a non-entity to your business or meet them in an entirely legal combat of some kind... legal, financial, or social... and you burn them to the ground, salt their fields, erase their language, kill their gods, and write then rewrite their history in your favor.
Look at what happened with that group of eco activists tried to scam Chevron? They went to Eduador, bribed local people to sign documents saying Chevron polluted the land by giving them free medicine and bicycles. Bribed public officials, and engaged in a smear campaign in the US.
What happened?
Chevron just took it as the usual eco activism nonsense at first and ignored it. But then they figured out that it was an elaborate scam they were being set up to take the fall for... and they went to war. They hired legions of investigators, found out who was bribed and either exposed it so they were discredited, and engaged the FBI in the US to go after the law firm in the US that was behind the whole thing.
For all the talk people make about the evil corporations very few understand what they're capable of if you cross the line from just having an opinion to going to war with them. Totally different response.
The teamsters will be fine so long as they're reasonable and don't act true to their historical form. IF they over play their hand and go to war with Google or Apple... God help them because short of Thor or Sobek showing up to save them they're toast.
No doubt the teamsters can run wild for a few years. I didn't say they'd solve it tomorrow. But this is the WORST place to start pissing companies off with this dried up union nonsense.
Well, yeah but we're not all desiring a communist revolution, sport. I hear your talk of revolutions and worker's this and lite that... and I'm pretty sure if I keep talking to you that you're going to use the word "proletariat" at some point.
That's just communist nonsense from my perspective.
Hmmm... the personal rapid transit system has more problems actually. If you're saying rails then the cost of doing that nationally is not feasible. What is more you have to appreciate that there are egos to feed. They're going to want to solve the problem in a way that puts their stamp on it. Also... they're already doing the driverless car... so... yeah.
Slashdot Mirror
Then by this logic, every cable company violates these net neutrality terms by bundling services.
Whatever... we'll see. I hope it works out well... I really do. I just would think everyone had been fucked in the ass enough times to not get all starry eyed because the politicians swore this time it would be different.
These new FCC regs that are 300 pages long... have you read them? Well basically no one has. And to find out what is in them... we'll have to wait for them to be implemented. So have fun with that. Because I'm sure the ISPs didn't sneak some fucked up provisions in there via their lobbyists. Right? Exactly.
what evhs my man. We shall see.
Good day.
No. If I want to lay cable... I will be stopped... Here is a quick little education for you, sport:
http://arstechnica.com/busines...
There are lots of articles on the subject. The ISP monopolies tend to get exclusive agreements in cities in exchange for giving free internet to schools or some other bullshit. And in return for that, the entire fucking city becomes at best a duopoly. That is why the duopologies reign. Because you are literally legally forbidden to compete with them.
And to clarify... I mean running my own fucking cable not sharing their broken down over priced under funded infrastructure.
And those same people are old and they would prefer if the gas were pumped by hand as well.
For some things I'll want a person too. For 90 percent of what you do at a hospital... I'll go non-human, thanks.
Coast 2 Coast.
here - Everywhere - there.
Call me when NYC and LA etc are forced to allow competition. Until that happens... this whole thing is bullshit.
They have these duopolies everywhere. They have it in New York city and Los Angeles and Miami and Seattle.
I'm reserving judgment until they break the monopolies that are CITY and county imposed as well. They're not any better.
A monopoly is a monopoly. I don't care who imposed it.
You're making a chicken and egg argument. You're implying the unions saved us from a communist revolution when often as not the unions had communist alliances and actively spread communist dogma. Several of the unions far from stopping a communist revolution seemed to want one.
So that's fine.
The most apt thing I can say here is to tell you something they used to say about Soviet Russia:
"The future is always the same. It is the past that keeps changing."
From my perspective you're changing how you remember history to keep your ideology's image of self perfection intact. While of course the future is likely whatever your ideal society happens to be...
Am I wrong, comrade? Neither of us will ever know. If I'm right then you're so twisted by your own cognitive dissonance that you wouldn't know yourself. And if I'm wrong then perhaps I am... either way... we can't resolve this issue outside of a psych-lab.
So... Good day.
... then you read again. I said pissing off these companies will make those things happen faster.
And we're done. Just enough.
Good day, sir.
Which claim would you liked backed up and with what sort of evidence?
See, this is where I'm going to stand firm... I have had a lot of discussions on the internet where someone will ask for evidence not to honestly discuss the issue but as a rhetorical device to basically wear the opposition out. The idea being to get the opposition to work really hard, get them running around in circles, and then when all is provided... reject all the evidence arbitrarily.
So since I don't know you, I don't know what your intentions are with that request. My default assumption is that I assume people are trolling if they're not constructive and generally rude. In my opinion you've been neither constructive nor especially polite. And that being the case I'm simply being cautious about wasting my time providing evidence in a discussion you probably aren't honestly engaging in in the first place.
So here is what I want... I want you to tell me specifically what you want proof of and the form of that proof. That way, if I deliver... you'll have little rhetorical ground to reject it given that it will have met your own stated standards.
They're already doing quite well in those government committees... and really all it takes to grease your way through most of those is some votes and some campaign contributions... that or sound arguments if they're not already bribed or looking for one.
Either way... I wouldn't count on it. Its coming. You can try to fight the future if you like... but its a bit like trying to stop the tide by slapping at it with your open hand.
As to unions stopping a communist revolution... I find that argument lacking in credibility. Especially since in places where the unions were the strongest they seem the most inclined to communism while places where they are the weakest are the least inclined to communism.
This strikes me as a bug being rebranded as a feature. Come on. You can do better.
One of the things that is especially amusing about the communist revolution theory that marx threw out is that it doesn't make any sense in the context of history.
Marx was quite good at analyzing EXISTING economic models but his grasp of human psychology, anthropology, culture, history, etc was not terribly good. Those that believe in a more communal life style would do well to start from scratch ideally with some people at the center of your group that understand what they're talking about a bit better. Marx and Marxist theory is generally not very credible if you analyze it with a clear eye.
This notion for example that you'll get some great uprising of workers forgets that workers have been abused far worse than that over time and while there are rebellions they don't ever lead to some communal state.
What is more, communal social arrangements have been tried repeatedly. Famously in one of the first English colonies it was tried. The name of the colony slips my mind at this moment, but they tried to go fully communal. They had a universal commons that everyone could work as much or as little as they wanted. Property rights were pretty lose. Sounded nice... only the colony nearly starved to death because there was no incentive to work. You got the same share of food whether you worked or not so why work?
Anyway, they shifted to a more traditional relationship where people owned property, worked that property, and traded for whatever else they wanted. If you didn't work... then you didn't eat. The colony was saved and ultimately became quite prosperous.
The whole communist/marxist system is at best ignorant. And so I don't especially fear it beyond being subjected to it by force by either ignorant people or tyrants exploiting the ignorance of people to build armies and subjugate people for their own profit.
Doubtless you disagree... that's super. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on that one, chum.
good day.
You're playing stupid rhetorical games instead of honestly trying to discuss the issue. Sophistry is obvious and you're not especially good at it.
Staffing agencies don't insist on labor monopolies. They're totally different.
So far it couldn't have because they haven't done anything yet. If they don't then it won't effect anything.
If they try any of their typical shenanigans then of course it could effect a LOT of things.
In regards to your statement that unions sometimes do good things, I didn't argue otherwise. Since you are suggesting that is my argument, you are attempting a strawman of my argument. That is either a misunderstanding on your part or a pointless rhetorical deception. Strawmanning works when you're debating before idiots or you're a politician arguing something for voters... which is sort of the same thing. But strawmanning doesn't work one on one which is what this is right now. I know what i said and I know what my argument is so there's no value in strawmanning me. Don't do it. It only serves to irritate me while poisoning the rhetorical well. I'm going to be less likely to extend you common courtesy if you behave that way.
As to your citation about some silly person playing the race card inappropriately... that is closer to what I'm talking about. You don't want to poison the relationship.
In the case of your hospital, it sounds like management was incompetent. And incompetence is generally problematic. To a large extent, I am arguing that the teamsters have a history of incompetence in negotiations BECAUSE they poison worker management relations unnecessarily. They have a history of it. And doing that with Google and Apple is poking dragons with sticks.
The price of organizing labor between industries to create national movements is that you'll create a national labor environment that is largely synchronized between many different industries. And as a result, it shouldn't surprise you that your collective action has a collective response.
If you cause a problem at lots of different companies why would it surprise you that lots of companies would seek to solve those problems in similar ways.
As to the teamster negociator being a jerk... NO.
He was not a jerk. If he showed up and JUST acted like an asshole that would be one thing. Companies deal with assholes all the time and while they don't like it... it isn't especially a business problem. You just suck it up and deal with him until the deal is signed and then you don't have to talk to him again for a few years. No big deal.
The problem was not that he was an asshole or rude. The problem was that he was implying illegal threats of violence, sabotage, vandalism, and quite legal but ultimately unacceptable extortion. In the case of the illegal things he implied that was basically a declaration that they wouldn't follow their contract if they wanted leverage. That means the contract itself loses value. The work slowdowns for example are done because they're not technically strikes and they have agreed not to do strikes in most cases. So they do a work slow down instead. From the perspective of the company, a slow down and a strike isn't that different. Deadlines are not met as a result. And any union that does a slowdown is basically failing to live up to their agreements. All the rabid unions love their strikes and slow downs. And the non-rabid unions don't do them ever. Because they know it poisons the relationship between the union and management. Its dumb.
The last thing you want to do as an employee or provider of anything is to spoil the relationship between you the seller of labor or service or goods and your customer which is buying your labor or service or goods. A union pissing all over management makes about as much sense as as the place I go to buy my food every so often calling me personally an asshole. I mean... I don't have to buy food there.
And the union gets away with that situation only so long as they do because they have labor monopolies. So its like me going to the store to buy food and there is ONLY one store to buy food at... so I just have to deal with the assholes at the company calling me names or otherwise treating me poorly.
Your belief that it makes sense for the union to adopt an adversarial relationship with the companies is rooted in a general misunderstanding as to the relationship between sellers of labor and buyers of labor. You want to ask for a higher price? Okay. That's fine. But don't try to take away my ability to shop around and try to get a lower price. No one deserves a monopoly. And that includes labor. If I want to ask around and try and get a better price then don't call the people that take my offer "Scabs" or whatever. That's fucked up. Yeah, their taking my offer undermines your bargaining position but your monopolistic leverage on a company isn't reasonable. You don't deserve a monopoly. No one does.
You're confusing the membership with the leadership. That's like confusing the average american with the american government.
Can you see why that's dumb? I hope so.
The union membership are just normal people and I don't bare any ill will to any of them. Their leadership is about as crazy as a bag of greased weasels.
And what magical powers would they use to stop such a thing? Their lobbying power is directly proportional to their ability to deliver votes and campaign contributions. Since their relevance TO politicians has been falling exponentially for years... good luck with that little plan.
Remember how NAFTA happened despite their personal hatred of the idea? Remember how the Keystone pipeline was shut down despite most of the labor unions actually wanting it because it meant jobs?
Their power in Washington at this point has dried up. Live by the bribe and die by the bribe. Their ability to bribe politicians into doing what they want as eroded massively. While the ability of these tech companies to get what they want has expanded MASSIVELY over the last few years. Mostly because they realized they needed to send money to washington or they'd get fucked over by rivals or anyone. Its something of an extortion racket by the politicians. Contribute to my campaign or I'll pass some regulation that will fuck up everything for you. So the tech companies pay with everyone else.
So... if you want to make threats of power politics... you can't back them up.
Sure I did. I said that if the teamsters put a stick in Apple and Google's eye those companies will be more inclined to accelerate their driverless car programs which strategically threaten the teamsters.
My argument was that it is not in the strategic interests of their members to annoy companies that sooner or later will INEVITABLY make many of their jobs obsolete. Annoying them simply makes something that WILL happen eventually happen sooner.
That is my argument. It was entirely clear and obvious to anyone that actually knows how to take apart natural language and reconstruct "words" into informal symbolic logic. Which logical people have been doing for thousands of years if often unconsciously.
Now... kindly piss off. You're officially too stupid to have an adult conversation.
You seem to think these guys are always on the right side of anything. As if all you need to be right is for someone you don't like for no reason to not be happy about it.
That's circular tribal thinking.
They're employed. Unlike the union workers which aren't.
So... how do you compare a pay check with a welfare check?
If people at the top of the corporate world learn anything it is that you don't let yourself be intimidated. Someone growls at you and you either render them a non-entity to your business or meet them in an entirely legal combat of some kind... legal, financial, or social... and you burn them to the ground, salt their fields, erase their language, kill their gods, and write then rewrite their history in your favor.
Look at what happened with that group of eco activists tried to scam Chevron? They went to Eduador, bribed local people to sign documents saying Chevron polluted the land by giving them free medicine and bicycles. Bribed public officials, and engaged in a smear campaign in the US.
What happened?
Chevron just took it as the usual eco activism nonsense at first and ignored it. But then they figured out that it was an elaborate scam they were being set up to take the fall for... and they went to war. They hired legions of investigators, found out who was bribed and either exposed it so they were discredited, and engaged the FBI in the US to go after the law firm in the US that was behind the whole thing.
For all the talk people make about the evil corporations very few understand what they're capable of if you cross the line from just having an opinion to going to war with them. Totally different response.
The teamsters will be fine so long as they're reasonable and don't act true to their historical form. IF they over play their hand and go to war with Google or Apple... God help them because short of Thor or Sobek showing up to save them they're toast.
No doubt the teamsters can run wild for a few years. I didn't say they'd solve it tomorrow. But this is the WORST place to start pissing companies off with this dried up union nonsense.
Well, yeah but we're not all desiring a communist revolution, sport. I hear your talk of revolutions and worker's this and lite that... and I'm pretty sure if I keep talking to you that you're going to use the word "proletariat" at some point.
That's just communist nonsense from my perspective.
To which I can only respond with this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Hmmm... the personal rapid transit system has more problems actually. If you're saying rails then the cost of doing that nationally is not feasible. What is more you have to appreciate that there are egos to feed. They're going to want to solve the problem in a way that puts their stamp on it. Also... they're already doing the driverless car... so... yeah.
I said clearly in my post that if they did that it wouldn't heal.