No, but depending on the State, if the burglar got away with your stuff you could kick in his front door and use force to recover it. Up to and including shooting anyone who tries to stop you in the face.
Well, if that came at all as a surprise, then you must not be working from empirical data.
And consider this - restructuring is expensive, time-consuming, and extremely uncertain. Even after it's done, there's no guarantee the company will survive. It shakes the confidence of investors, customers and the remaining employees. Restructuring due to a drop in profits is akin to cutting off an arm due to a hangnail. You do it when profits are dropping below 0, and aren't likely to recover.
Now there are some vicious people on Wall Street who will happily swoop in and buy out a troubled company, fire everyone and sell off any assets. They're vultures, and easy to hate, but like actual vultures they fill a necessary, though distasteful role. But here's the important thing about them - they only show up when a company is about to collapse on its own. Like the bird, they aren't interested in live meat.
Please also note that people are a resource (my high-school guidance counselor would often call himself a resource at our disposal). Employees are assets. Key assets with generally quantifiable value in terms of work product. Which is not the same as commoditization. Commodities are non-differentiable, marketable products. If you want to treat labor as a commodity, you need a large pool of virtually identical workers who will provide comparable labor regardless of the specific task. One could argue that this is exactly what temp agencies and unions do, though they may not care for it.
Would you also say that a homeowner can't use force against an intruder because they forgot to lock the back door? That they should just sit in a corner feeling foolish while their possessions are hauled away and their wife raped?
Seriously though, its often the case that corporations are left without any viable legal recourse. China is not going to help an American company recover stolen information, and it's government may even be responsible. We already allow the use of force in self defence, against intruders, and at least in some States, to recover stolen property. I see no reason not to extend that to corporate persons. Especially when law enforcement can't fill the role.
Economic stability and security. As in conditions that support steady and sustained growth, which for the employee represents job security. Layoffs are a desperate measure, a last-ditch survival strategy. Businesses want to grow, not shrink. And managers generally don't like firing people.
And I don't know where you get this risk management stuff. Outside of the specific context of security, physical or IT, that just doesn't make any kind of sense. Employees are not risks to be managed, they are a vital resource. Which is why companies have Human Resources departments instead of Risk Mitigation.
I work for one of the ten largest corporations in the world. Where it is made abundantly clear that employees are highly valued. A very successful strategy. Treating employees poorly tends not to be.
Seeing as how power companies are more interested in their bottom line than political gamesmanship, I'd have to go with choice #1. Since it's becoming ever more practical, it's going to become responsible for an ever greater portion of our energy production.
Heck, she could have asked around for predictions of renewable adoption so she could announce a "plan" to get us to 33%, knowing in advance that it will happen on its own. That way if she wins, she can look like a success without having to do anything. Not the worst idea ever.
I think that "golden era" ran from the late 1940's to the '70's. From the end of WWII, until the rest of the developed world rebuilt their industrial bases, infrastructures and populations. That generation where we had no industrial competition.
Some huge corporations are shrinking? Is somebody suggesting they want to? Instead of talking about how much it stinks for workers, why not talk about why its happening?
No business wants to shrink, or find out they have to lay off thousands of employees to survive. They are every bit as interested in stability and security as their employees. But it seems nobody wants to talk about that, everyone would rather assign blame or demand radical changes to fix a symptom without asking what the cause is. Or worse, saying "we know what the cause is, it's the greed of evil [corporations/unions]!", assuming their bias is correct and going no further.
Maybe, the "era of security" was an aberration stemming from the absence of international competition in the aftermath of WWII and the devastation wrought on the industrial base of every other developed nation? Is it actually good for workers or the economy if workers spend their entire working lives in the same job? Have we forgotten that a dynamic economy means even established businesses can be forced to shrink in order to survive? What about the high levels of economic uncertainty they have had to contend with of late?
What if it's better this way? Maybe not having a guaranteed job-for-life is better for everyone in the long-term. Can we consider that? What if too much security causes stagnation, making it an unstable condition that necessarily leads to less security in the long term?
Does this article do anything more than let people vent their biases? Flamebait from the start?
Well with an upgrade I guess you have to do a custom, rather than express, install. I forgot about that bit.
Not that it matters a whole lot. The setting is pretty obvious in the new settings panel, or you could just right-click the start button. Defaults are there too. Or type 'default apps' into the search bar.
Just like in 8/8.1 you can use a local account instead. Just be careful when you set yourself up with the store. I accidentally converted my account to online in the process and when I converted it back, the progress window crashed, so I sat there for over an hour getting increasingly upset before I crossed my fingers and killed the window.
Now you'll see google listed. Just click it and hit Add as Default.
I was annoyed by that myself, so I said "why don't I try it from google's search page?" Worked out well! And I assume it will work the same for other engines as well. So long as they support Open Search.
Well, it does ask if you want to change the default browser. It brings up a screen where you can choose your default apps, and the first one is your browser.
Steam home streaming works brilliantly for me. The image quality is every bit as good on the client as it is on the host and input lag is nonexistent (network hiccups aside). What I've heard about XBOX streaming (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/07/xbox-on-windows-10-what-it-is-what-it-isnt-and-whats-missing/) leads me to think that, at least for now, it doesn't compare.
The answer to both - it really isn't. Advertisers can get away with shading the truth when making competitor comparisons, but this is beyond the pale (that's an idiom meaning "really, really, unusually wrong"). Heads will roll, starting with Mississippi's AG.
To say that Google engages in interstate commerce is a bit of an understatement. Sure as hell sounds to me like this AG is trying to regulate what has become a major channel for interstate commerce, thereby exceeding the hell out his authority and violating the f- out of the Constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but depending on the State, if the burglar got away with your stuff you could kick in his front door and use force to recover it. Up to and including shooting anyone who tries to stop you in the face.
Because those are funny names!
sports games? When I saw the headline, my first thought was, "When did MS make sports games? I thought they left that to EA."
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/s...
And consider this - restructuring is expensive, time-consuming, and extremely uncertain. Even after it's done, there's no guarantee the company will survive. It shakes the confidence of investors, customers and the remaining employees. Restructuring due to a drop in profits is akin to cutting off an arm due to a hangnail. You do it when profits are dropping below 0, and aren't likely to recover.
Now there are some vicious people on Wall Street who will happily swoop in and buy out a troubled company, fire everyone and sell off any assets. They're vultures, and easy to hate, but like actual vultures they fill a necessary, though distasteful role. But here's the important thing about them - they only show up when a company is about to collapse on its own. Like the bird, they aren't interested in live meat.
Please also note that people are a resource (my high-school guidance counselor would often call himself a resource at our disposal). Employees are assets. Key assets with generally quantifiable value in terms of work product. Which is not the same as commoditization. Commodities are non-differentiable, marketable products. If you want to treat labor as a commodity, you need a large pool of virtually identical workers who will provide comparable labor regardless of the specific task. One could argue that this is exactly what temp agencies and unions do, though they may not care for it.
Would you also say that a homeowner can't use force against an intruder because they forgot to lock the back door? That they should just sit in a corner feeling foolish while their possessions are hauled away and their wife raped?
Maybe your posts get deleted because you're an unhinged loon spouting offensive paranoid nonsense?
Seriously though, its often the case that corporations are left without any viable legal recourse. China is not going to help an American company recover stolen information, and it's government may even be responsible. We already allow the use of force in self defence, against intruders, and at least in some States, to recover stolen property. I see no reason not to extend that to corporate persons. Especially when law enforcement can't fill the role.
An excellent point.
And I don't know where you get this risk management stuff. Outside of the specific context of security, physical or IT, that just doesn't make any kind of sense. Employees are not risks to be managed, they are a vital resource. Which is why companies have Human Resources departments instead of Risk Mitigation.
I work for one of the ten largest corporations in the world. Where it is made abundantly clear that employees are highly valued. A very successful strategy. Treating employees poorly tends not to be.
Or you've had to listen to them talk about how superior they are for not eating meat. Torquemada could take lessons...
as bad as it sounds? Because it sounds like it will taste horrific.
Heck, she could have asked around for predictions of renewable adoption so she could announce a "plan" to get us to 33%, knowing in advance that it will happen on its own. That way if she wins, she can look like a success without having to do anything. Not the worst idea ever.
I think that "golden era" ran from the late 1940's to the '70's. From the end of WWII, until the rest of the developed world rebuilt their industrial bases, infrastructures and populations. That generation where we had no industrial competition.
No business wants to shrink, or find out they have to lay off thousands of employees to survive. They are every bit as interested in stability and security as their employees. But it seems nobody wants to talk about that, everyone would rather assign blame or demand radical changes to fix a symptom without asking what the cause is. Or worse, saying "we know what the cause is, it's the greed of evil [corporations/unions]!", assuming their bias is correct and going no further.
Maybe, the "era of security" was an aberration stemming from the absence of international competition in the aftermath of WWII and the devastation wrought on the industrial base of every other developed nation? Is it actually good for workers or the economy if workers spend their entire working lives in the same job? Have we forgotten that a dynamic economy means even established businesses can be forced to shrink in order to survive? What about the high levels of economic uncertainty they have had to contend with of late?
What if it's better this way? Maybe not having a guaranteed job-for-life is better for everyone in the long-term. Can we consider that? What if too much security causes stagnation, making it an unstable condition that necessarily leads to less security in the long term?
Does this article do anything more than let people vent their biases? Flamebait from the start?
Not that it matters a whole lot. The setting is pretty obvious in the new settings panel, or you could just right-click the start button. Defaults are there too. Or type 'default apps' into the search bar.
Sorry, Microsoft ... but everything I hear about Windows 10 is making me say "fuck you, I'll stick with my Windows 8.1".
Stop listening to those sources. They're wrong. The most annoying things about 10 were already in 8/8.1, and everything else is better.
https://www.opensecrets.org/or...
Everything worked out fine.
Navigate to google.com
Open Settings -> Advanced -> Search -> Add New
Now you'll see google listed. Just click it and hit Add as Default.
I was annoyed by that myself, so I said "why don't I try it from google's search page?" Worked out well! And I assume it will work the same for other engines as well. So long as they support Open Search.
Well, it does ask if you want to change the default browser. It brings up a screen where you can choose your default apps, and the first one is your browser.
Not only does it ask what you want your default browser to be, changing it after the fact is dead simple.
Plus, I don't have an XBOX.
The answer to both - it really isn't. Advertisers can get away with shading the truth when making competitor comparisons, but this is beyond the pale (that's an idiom meaning "really, really, unusually wrong"). Heads will roll, starting with Mississippi's AG.
To say that Google engages in interstate commerce is a bit of an understatement. Sure as hell sounds to me like this AG is trying to regulate what has become a major channel for interstate commerce, thereby exceeding the hell out his authority and violating the f- out of the Constitution.