The point being, people have this image of Castro as a champion of the proletariat. Most people know nothing about him. He is a consumate politician.
Nice Anti-Usian Propaganda, Now Some Facts
on
Cuba Switching to Linux
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
America is pretty much the only country not trading with Cuba directly. In spite of that, millions in US currency flow into Cuba every month through indirect routes, including the sizable Cuban population who fled to the US for love of freedom. Overall, Cuba has a national GDP of $33.92 billion, which gives them a far better per-capita than most other countries with similar poverty levels.
The reality simply is that Cuba is run by a corrupt and incompetant military dictator whose only prior qualification was being a spoiled rich kid and lawyer. The complete mismanagement of the economy by his everlasting regime led to scarcity, and the spoils system inherent in any communist regime has led to a disparity whereby most Cubans live in abject poverty, but the priveledged few live in opulant comfort.
Cuba is not even a good example of how a communist ought to be run, but it is an excellent example of how communist governments eventually are run.
To wit, Cuba does a fair trade with everyone else on the planet. Not being able to (directly) sell cigars and wicker baskets to Floridians isn't exactly killing them. The incompetant central authority run by a senile peasant military dictator might be part of the problem.
I still have an IBM 365DX laptop running Windows95. It controls my house. Every 100 days or so, all the lights shut off, and I'm guided to its rickety keyboard by the soft flickering of blue that emanates from the ancient screen. Then...CTRL+ALT+DEL, and the lights come on in less than a minute.
Sure, I could use debian and cron to replicate the control software. But I'm an American...I use proprietary closed source software!
The population owns the production of the goods themselves consume.
No, they don't. When a centralized authority assumes control of the resource, they own it. Communism relies on the gullibility of "the people" to believe that the State will act altruistically. Lenin referred to these people as "useful idiots".
A free market economy is the only place where "the people" can truly own a resource. A non-democratic, centrally controlled government does not sell shares. Corporations do.
While I loathe the Chinese Government (and yet, love the Chinese people - how does that happen), this is a sensible move for them. They've had problems in the past with malicious code being put in software they've procured, most infamously anti-government slogans and messages popping up in MS Word thanks to deviant coders in Taiwan working as contractors for Microsoft.
You can't shoot someone for crimes against the State when they're in a different State.
Federalism in no way implies the States are soverign. Federalism is the name given to the influence of the federal government and consolidation of power in the federal government through abdication of the States. Completely different idea here.
And yes, this is exactly what was intended by the founding fathers, which is why Article. IV. Section. 1 exists in the Constitution. If it helps:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Commerce, as used in the constitution, doesn't mean "trade". It simply means relations. Any interaction between States or citizens of States is commerce.
The Federal government has the right to regulate "interstate commerce". Since people drive on federally funded interstate highway systems, and cross state lines while driving, then they have the right to step in.
I wasn't aware that American NDAs are non-compete agreements.
To be absolutely technical, they're not. But constantly say "Non-Disclosure Non-Compete" doesn't roll off the tongue like say "endeay". The standard corporate NDNCA outlines things like confidentiality expectations between the two parties, the presumed agreement to not use divulged secrets against the discloser on the part of the disclosee, and so on. But as I was saying, they are essentially junk documents that are signed and made to be signed as a matter of course in order to establish a quasi-legal relationship between employer and employee. Later, the employer will use them to threaten the employee. In truth, I don't use NDAs with my employees or contracters. You either trust them, or you don't, and if you don't trust them you don't give them access to trade secrets (of which there are none).
I used NDAs, of all places, with my customers, and I use them more as a marketing tool first, a legal protection second. If I had a customer go blab to another customer about the great deal they got, it's usually not a big deal for me. However, I have done special favors for certain individuals at well below market price in order to get their business, or in a few cases because I really wanted to give to the community. If others got wind of those loss leaders, I'd be hard pressed to justify my pricing structure, and I would invariably be caused actual damages.
And I totally agree about the 'not burning bridges' part, and was in no way intending to advocate that. But business is business, and he is right to take advantage of every legal opportunity available to him to advance. Morally, he shouldn't do it at someone elses expense, but individual labor is a free market. Patronage died at the same time three martini lunches, guaranteed pensions, and job stability died. If he can lure employees away with better pay, fringe benefits, options, flexible work environments, or anything else than that is business.
Most NDAs here in the states are non-compete agreements. The only time you have to worry about an NDA is when you disclose trade secrets in a manner that directly harms your (former) employers ability to profit in the market. Simply telling someone something is insufficient; your breach can only be actionable in the event that actual damages are inflicted.
As to the "stick it to 'em" argument; nobody is advocating that. However, it is within his best interest to retain documentation which can establish his performance.
Also, the happy go lucky mentality you ascribe is not a reality in the American corporate world. Business is not about 'networking', it's about competition and marketshare. In this case, his boss is already 'trash talking' him, and legitimate reasons notwithstanding he has to protect his own interests in this matter.
Good intentions don't go nearly half as far as good measures.
He cannot 'withold' your final paycheck. In fact, in many States he is required to render unto you your paycheck immediately upon your termination or last day of work.
If your boss truly is nuts, then you will not be able to rely on him for a good reference anyway. Get letters from other supervisors who know of your performance, or even from fellow coworkers.
Save any incriminating documentation you can, up to and including business secrets and client lists. I don't care if you signed an NDA. Here's the scoop: most NDA's are unenforcable anyway. They're designed to scare cubicle-bound white-collar wage slaves into not rocking the boat. And he's already accused you of high treason, conspiracy, and piracy on the high seas, so you might as well.
The ultimate revenge on an asshole boss is to leave, become better than you were under him, and then cut his feet out from under him. Don't hesitate to lure his talent away either. When I leave a job for a better one, I always try to take a few key people with me.
Don't leave any trace behind. If you have someone in IT, see if they can slip you a copy of the restore CD. When you leave work, put it in the drive, schedule a restart. If it's the 'cast' kind, it'll restore your machine to factory spec. As an alternative, "rm -f *" from root, or use FDISK under dos to crash the drive.
I used to work for a real slime-ball myself. It was hard because on the one hand your work ethic drives you to do your best, but then your best winds up giving positive reinforcement to an individual who actually works against you in the long run. It's hard to do a good job and undermine the boss, and it doesn't make you a good person when you do succeed at corporate politicking. You can either be above it, or risk "the dark side'.
First, some ground rules for this pissing contest. First, don't assume you know jack shit about who I am or my military service. Secondly, since you've never been on the receiving end of enemy fire, since you've never watched your fellow combat infantryman cut down by snipers, and you've never known the look of your buddies blood all over your hands because you had to apply pressure to his leg so he didn't bleed out in the middle of a god-forsaken third world hellhole, don't criticize the actions of others under fire, because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
That's the problem with people like you. You take one incident and herald it as truth for all the alleged unjustified killings. You care incapable of accepting trajedy when it can be used to satisfy your deep seated mindless hatred.
Tell me. What country are you from. Lets compare stories of alleged atrocities committed by our incompetant troops and your incompetant troops, shall we?
Or maybe you can grow up and figure out that war is hell.
He can come to Jacksonville, and I'll give him an old jalopy. He will find that if you approach either the Camp Lejeune main or auxillary gates, or the New River Marine Corps Air Station main gate at a high rate of speed, he will receive at least two full clips of 5.56mm ammunition, and possibly a 12 gauge slug fired from an italian made shotgun. Hows that for irony.
> The shots were fired FIRST at a NON-SPEEDING car, as the testimony above makes clear.
The speed limit on that road is about 33 mph (20 km/h). The average speed is 44 mph (28 kmh). The car was speeding. The driver was spotlighted, and lasered according to procedure. Because he was yapping on his cell phone and not paying attention to the road, he failed to note the obtusely large M2 Bradley off to the side of the road, the spotlight, and the laser.
> Since everyone knows that US troops follow up a warning shot by spraying cars with hundreds of rounds in a panic, the driver sped up.
That makes perfect sense...
>Since the US was fully informed about the rescue mission, they should have been fully aware of the position of the vehicle and its occupants on what was a "secure" road.
Since the Italian agents changed the planned route at the last minute...no...they won't.
You know, this whole thing is trajic enough without idiots like you manufacturing baseless lies and repeating them ad nauseum. Why can't you just accept that it was a simple tragedy?
You're an idiot. The shots entered through the side windows, which any moron (except you, apparently, because you're a special case of moron) can see are shot out. Only in hollywood to all bullets enter through the front windsheild (hint: looks better for the camera).
Both the American and Italian official accounts quote the surviving K&R Agent as saying he 'heard gunshots and sped up'. Thats a common tactic in Iraq where speed means safety. The frustrating thing is that this is a simple tragedy, but there are people with an axe to grind that want to manufacture a conspiracy that isn't even there.
What is notable about this device is that it can be practically mass produced. One problem with the FHF is that it's a rather complex beast and requires enormous input energy.
Despite the simplicity of the Fusor, it is not actually used as a neutron source by anyone.
Diamler-Chrysler has commercially sold a fusor it calls "Fusion Star" for several years as a high-count neutron source. Fusors are in use at the University of Illinois, Brigham Young, and NC State. If you want references...google. Common knowledge shouldn't have to have a citation.
It only really works for people attached to a single genre. I'm in the minority of people because I listen to just about anything but rap - and there are exceptions there as well. So if I click on Portishead, I'll get a bunch of acid jazz lookalikes, but when I click on Raymond James it'll probably get confused and kick me over to bluegrass, which would be swell...but Wind River is not folk.
Slashdot Mirror
The point being, people have this image of Castro as a champion of the proletariat. Most people know nothing about him. He is a consumate politician.
America is pretty much the only country not trading with Cuba directly. In spite of that, millions in US currency flow into Cuba every month through indirect routes, including the sizable Cuban population who fled to the US for love of freedom. Overall, Cuba has a national GDP of $33.92 billion, which gives them a far better per-capita than most other countries with similar poverty levels.
The reality simply is that Cuba is run by a corrupt and incompetant military dictator whose only prior qualification was being a spoiled rich kid and lawyer. The complete mismanagement of the economy by his everlasting regime led to scarcity, and the spoils system inherent in any communist regime has led to a disparity whereby most Cubans live in abject poverty, but the priveledged few live in opulant comfort.
Cuba is not even a good example of how a communist ought to be run, but it is an excellent example of how communist governments eventually are run.
To wit, Cuba does a fair trade with everyone else on the planet. Not being able to (directly) sell cigars and wicker baskets to Floridians isn't exactly killing them. The incompetant central authority run by a senile peasant military dictator might be part of the problem.
I still have an IBM 365DX laptop running Windows95. It controls my house. Every 100 days or so, all the lights shut off, and I'm guided to its rickety keyboard by the soft flickering of blue that emanates from the ancient screen. Then...CTRL+ALT+DEL, and the lights come on in less than a minute.
Sure, I could use debian and cron to replicate the control software. But I'm an American...I use proprietary closed source software!
(sic)
YHBT. HAND.
No, they don't. When a centralized authority assumes control of the resource, they own it. Communism relies on the gullibility of "the people" to believe that the State will act altruistically. Lenin referred to these people as "useful idiots".
A free market economy is the only place where "the people" can truly own a resource. A non-democratic, centrally controlled government does not sell shares. Corporations do.
I look forward to the day when people stop letting themselves be consumed with hatred.
While I loathe the Chinese Government (and yet, love the Chinese people - how does that happen), this is a sensible move for them. They've had problems in the past with malicious code being put in software they've procured, most infamously anti-government slogans and messages popping up in MS Word thanks to deviant coders in Taiwan working as contractors for Microsoft.
You can't shoot someone for crimes against the State when they're in a different State.
And yes, this is exactly what was intended by the founding fathers, which is why Article. IV.
Section. 1 exists in the Constitution. If it helps:
So, you were saying?
Commerce, as used in the constitution, doesn't mean "trade". It simply means relations. Any interaction between States or citizens of States is commerce.
The Federal government has the right to regulate "interstate commerce". Since people drive on federally funded interstate highway systems, and cross state lines while driving, then they have the right to step in.
Welcome to federalism.
To be absolutely technical, they're not. But constantly say "Non-Disclosure Non-Compete" doesn't roll off the tongue like say "endeay". The standard corporate NDNCA outlines things like confidentiality expectations between the two parties, the presumed agreement to not use divulged secrets against the discloser on the part of the disclosee, and so on. But as I was saying, they are essentially junk documents that are signed and made to be signed as a matter of course in order to establish a quasi-legal relationship between employer and employee. Later, the employer will use them to threaten the employee. In truth, I don't use NDAs with my employees or contracters. You either trust them, or you don't, and if you don't trust them you don't give them access to trade secrets (of which there are none).
I used NDAs, of all places, with my customers, and I use them more as a marketing tool first, a legal protection second. If I had a customer go blab to another customer about the great deal they got, it's usually not a big deal for me. However, I have done special favors for certain individuals at well below market price in order to get their business, or in a few cases because I really wanted to give to the community. If others got wind of those loss leaders, I'd be hard pressed to justify my pricing structure, and I would invariably be caused actual damages.
And I totally agree about the 'not burning bridges' part, and was in no way intending to advocate that. But business is business, and he is right to take advantage of every legal opportunity available to him to advance. Morally, he shouldn't do it at someone elses expense, but individual labor is a free market. Patronage died at the same time three martini lunches, guaranteed pensions, and job stability died. If he can lure employees away with better pay, fringe benefits, options, flexible work environments, or anything else than that is business.
Most NDAs here in the states are non-compete agreements. The only time you have to worry about an NDA is when you disclose trade secrets in a manner that directly harms your (former) employers ability to profit in the market. Simply telling someone something is insufficient; your breach can only be actionable in the event that actual damages are inflicted.
As to the "stick it to 'em" argument; nobody is advocating that. However, it is within his best interest to retain documentation which can establish his performance.
Also, the happy go lucky mentality you ascribe is not a reality in the American corporate world. Business is not about 'networking', it's about competition and marketshare. In this case, his boss is already 'trash talking' him, and legitimate reasons notwithstanding he has to protect his own interests in this matter.
Good intentions don't go nearly half as far as good measures.
I used to work for a real slime-ball myself. It was hard because on the one hand your work ethic drives you to do your best, but then your best winds up giving positive reinforcement to an individual who actually works against you in the long run. It's hard to do a good job and undermine the boss, and it doesn't make you a good person when you do succeed at corporate politicking. You can either be above it, or risk "the dark side'.
So who do you love?
First, some ground rules for this pissing contest. First, don't assume you know jack shit about who I am or my military service. Secondly, since you've never been on the receiving end of enemy fire, since you've never watched your fellow combat infantryman cut down by snipers, and you've never known the look of your buddies blood all over your hands because you had to apply pressure to his leg so he didn't bleed out in the middle of a god-forsaken third world hellhole, don't criticize the actions of others under fire, because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
And that effectively ends this argument.
I was IN the US military for three years including a year in Vietnam. I KNOW how stupid and incompetent the US military mind is first hand.
That's either the dumbest lie I've never heard, or the most stunning self-depricating admission I have ever seen.
That's the problem with people like you. You take one incident and herald it as truth for all the alleged unjustified killings. You care incapable of accepting trajedy when it can be used to satisfy your deep seated mindless hatred.
Tell me. What country are you from. Lets compare stories of alleged atrocities committed by our incompetant troops and your incompetant troops, shall we?
Or maybe you can grow up and figure out that war is hell.
He can come to Jacksonville, and I'll give him an old jalopy. He will find that if you approach either the Camp Lejeune main or auxillary gates, or the New River Marine Corps Air Station main gate at a high rate of speed, he will receive at least two full clips of 5.56mm ammunition, and possibly a 12 gauge slug fired from an italian made shotgun. Hows that for irony.
> The shots were fired FIRST at a NON-SPEEDING car, as the testimony above makes clear.
The speed limit on that road is about 33 mph (20 km/h). The average speed is 44 mph (28 kmh). The car was speeding. The driver was spotlighted, and lasered according to procedure. Because he was yapping on his cell phone and not paying attention to the road, he failed to note the obtusely large M2 Bradley off to the side of the road, the spotlight, and the laser.
> Since everyone knows that US troops follow up a warning shot by spraying cars with hundreds of rounds in a panic, the driver sped up.
That makes perfect sense...
>Since the US was fully informed about the rescue mission, they should have been fully aware of the position of the vehicle and its occupants on what was a "secure" road.
Since the Italian agents changed the planned route at the last minute...no...they won't.
You know, this whole thing is trajic enough without idiots like you manufacturing baseless lies and repeating them ad nauseum. Why can't you just accept that it was a simple tragedy?
You're an idiot. The shots entered through the side windows, which any moron (except you, apparently, because you're a special case of moron) can see are shot out. Only in hollywood to all bullets enter through the front windsheild (hint: looks better for the camera).
Both the American and Italian official accounts quote the surviving K&R Agent as saying he 'heard gunshots and sped up'. Thats a common tactic in Iraq where speed means safety. The frustrating thing is that this is a simple tragedy, but there are people with an axe to grind that want to manufacture a conspiracy that isn't even there.
What is notable about this device is that it can be practically mass produced. One problem with the FHF is that it's a rather complex beast and requires enormous input energy.
Despite the simplicity of the Fusor, it is not actually used as a neutron source by anyone.
Diamler-Chrysler has commercially sold a fusor it calls "Fusion Star" for several years as a high-count neutron source. Fusors are in use at the University of Illinois, Brigham Young, and NC State. If you want references...google. Common knowledge shouldn't have to have a citation.
It only really works for people attached to a single genre. I'm in the minority of people because I listen to just about anything but rap - and there are exceptions there as well. So if I click on Portishead, I'll get a bunch of acid jazz lookalikes, but when I click on Raymond James it'll probably get confused and kick me over to bluegrass, which would be swell...but Wind River is not folk.