Wal-Mart might go too far in its efforts to squeeze its suppliers.
What if some of the distributors refuse to sell to Wal-Mart at lower prices? Wal-Mart can either pay the price, or stop doing business with those suppliers.
If the suppliers stood up against Wal-Mart, perhaps it will no longer sell one of every five CDs. If someone wants to buy a particular CD, they won't be able to get it at Wal-Mart. It might be good for the whole industry.
you should know that the head of boing has been quoted as saying that it was easier to design and build a new boing 777 then it is to get a permit to build a house in seattle...
Maybe you meant Boeing, but you can't spell (or punctuate) too well.
If what you claim 'the head of boing' claimed was true, then a lot of us could easily design and build a new 'boing 777'.
If you need a permit to build a house in Seattle, let me know. It is really not that hard.
Are you ignoring jobs and businesses that immigrants create? If that did not happen, we would have even fewer jobs to claim were created.
And if our immigration policies were more like those of Australia and Canada, we could ensure that immigrants brought needed skills (like nursing experience or expertise in biotechnology, say) or opened businesses (restaurants, auto body shops, retail stores, light manufacturing, flower shops, etc.) that employed others. Immigrants can and do contribute to the economy.
Without immigrants coming to the US, some of those jobs would not be created, and other jobs would not be filled -- whether for lack of skills or because no one wanted to do the grueling menial work.
Maybe we both agree that immigration policies need to be tweaked to help improve the economy, no?
I still don't see many people born here clamouring to wash dishes at restaurants, or work in the custodial arts. Most of the places that cut hair and give manicures are run by Vietnamese and other Asians. Most of the girls that perform 'full massages' are Chinese and/or Thai (since many Thai people are ethnically Chinese). The staff in the back of most restaurants is predominantly Mexican (or other Central Americans).
If native-born job seekers really wanted these jobs, don't you think employers would hire them? While it may cost less per hour to hire immigrants, there are other costs imposed by cultural differences and language barriers. If employers could hire natives, wouldn't they?
The laws governing our society should be open and transparent. Secret laws should not get us in trouble. How can we break the law if we have no way to know the law exists?
Too many government secrets are considered essential to national security. If you saw all that classified BS, how much is really vital to keep the nation secure? A lot of it is just revelead to insiders for the sake of having special privleges over others. If you have a Q clearance and I don't, how come I still know how to make hydrogen bombs?
Lesson one:
There is not much information that really needs to be secret. And laws are never part of that information.
Only Congress can make laws, not the executive branch. Executive orders have no power over citizens. They can only give orders for employees of the bureaucracies that make up that branch. The FAA (for example) cannot just make up some new rule and expect anyone to follow it. If Congress does not pass the law, it does not apply.
Lesson two:
Ashcroft and Bush cannot make up their own legislation. Only Congress can pass legislation. And the judicial branch can decide if those laws violate the Constitution.
There is hope for the future.
Congress might actually start doing its job.
And the judicial branch might side with Mr. Gilmore in that case, hopefully ruling that a law must be published for the public to read, or it will not be enforced.
Let's continue to focus on the raw number of jobs that has been created (or lost) compared to how many economists expected to be created.
While we're at it, let's keep ignoring average wages relative to hours worked, and somehow not notice whether the quality of jobs being created is anywhere nearly as good as those we have lost in the past few years.
A lot of companies try to hire the best and brightest workers they can find.
In SCO's case, they seem to hire people with no logic. Want to work for SCO? Can you make illogical jumps in your thinking? Do the following statements make sense to you?
Linux does not exist, so let's sue people for using it.
IBM stole our source code and we are going to prove it--without showing the stolen source code to anyone (even the courts) unless they sign this NDA.
The Security Focus article mentions 'FBI agents wielding a controversial, but misunderstood, federal surveillance law'.
The FBI should limit its work to the United States only. They can cooperate with the Romanian police from here, but not more than that. And US laws have no power in Romania or anywhere else outside this country's borders.
Put this in perspective by flipping things around. Suppose some US-based hackers infiltrated a German research facility in Argentina. Would the US allow German investigators to come here and operate like a police force? Even if they got local police or FBI cooperation? And would German federal laws have any power here in the states?
They probably didn't think anyone would even bother trying. There is *nothing* on the Amundsen-Scott system worth stealing or hacking. It's mostly raw scientific data, email, and copies of their small web site.
That's what is so funny. The first article insinuates that those Romanian crackers 'threaten the public investment in scientific research that benefits all mankind'. How does releasing data threaten any public investment? As a taxpayer, it does not bother me.
As for threatening the lives of the researchers there, let's hope they do not run critical systems on the network. Why would anyone put life-support systems, heating, ventilation, etc. on a network that is connected to the outside world? No, really. . . why?
The first two are different. License plates and passports are for identification, not to keep tabs on you. (That would actually cost more money to track you. The fees to get license plates and passports only pay the administrative costs for those IDs.)
The last two are controversial. In those cases, people are paying a fee for something that is actually paid for by taxes. (They are charging us twice, and moving the extra money elsewhere. Where's the oversight?)
Only the people who use a service should pay for it. Only airport users should pay for airport security. The police should pay to have telephones tapped. (The police are the users of the service that is provided.)
I can go to prison for a very long time if I mess with them. But what about people in other countries like Belize, Russia, or China? I think US laws only cover the US.
I am not worried about terrorists disrupting the flow of commerce. I am worried about money just disappearing because it will be much easier to crack the network.
What if your payment to the credit card company (usually a bank) was diverted to an account in Turks & Caicos? How could you prove it? How could you get your money back?
Slashdot Mirror
What if some of the distributors refuse to sell to Wal-Mart at lower prices? Wal-Mart can either pay the price, or stop doing business with those suppliers.
If the suppliers stood up against Wal-Mart, perhaps it will no longer sell one of every five CDs. If someone wants to buy a particular CD, they won't be able to get it at Wal-Mart. It might be good for the whole industry.
Please don't use any of my tax money for this crap.
Maybe you meant Boeing, but you can't spell (or punctuate) too well.
If what you claim 'the head of boing' claimed was true, then a lot of us could easily design and build a new 'boing 777'.
If you need a permit to build a house in Seattle, let me know. It is really not that hard.
Washington state does too much 'business' with MS as it is.
Really? How?
Technically, the company could decide to employ no one in the state and still get those tax breaks. How does that help the state of Nevada one bit?
Obviously, it was a review of Japan.
And if our immigration policies were more like those of Australia and Canada, we could ensure that immigrants brought needed skills (like nursing experience or expertise in biotechnology, say) or opened businesses (restaurants, auto body shops, retail stores, light manufacturing, flower shops, etc.) that employed others. Immigrants can and do contribute to the economy.
Without immigrants coming to the US, some of those jobs would not be created, and other jobs would not be filled -- whether for lack of skills or because no one wanted to do the grueling menial work.
Maybe we both agree that immigration policies need to be tweaked to help improve the economy, no?
If native-born job seekers really wanted these jobs, don't you think employers would hire them? While it may cost less per hour to hire immigrants, there are other costs imposed by cultural differences and language barriers. If employers could hire natives, wouldn't they?
I thought rights were for the living. If you die, or are not born yet, how can you have those rights?
The laws governing our society should be open and transparent. Secret laws should not get us in trouble. How can we break the law if we have no way to know the law exists?
Too many government secrets are considered essential to national security. If you saw all that classified BS, how much is really vital to keep the nation secure? A lot of it is just revelead to insiders for the sake of having special privleges over others. If you have a Q clearance and I don't, how come I still know how to make hydrogen bombs?
Lesson one:
There is not much information that really needs to be secret. And laws are never part of that information.
Only Congress can make laws, not the executive branch. Executive orders have no power over citizens. They can only give orders for employees of the bureaucracies that make up that branch. The FAA (for example) cannot just make up some new rule and expect anyone to follow it. If Congress does not pass the law, it does not apply.
Lesson two:
Ashcroft and Bush cannot make up their own legislation. Only Congress can pass legislation. And the judicial branch can decide if those laws violate the Constitution.
There is hope for the future.
Congress might actually start doing its job.
And the judicial branch might side with Mr. Gilmore in that case, hopefully ruling that a law must be published for the public to read, or it will not be enforced.
Cross your fingers and/or pray.
Was that a typo, or did you really think I was alive when our country was just starting out?
While we're at it, let's keep ignoring average wages relative to hours worked, and somehow not notice whether the quality of jobs being created is anywhere nearly as good as those we have lost in the past few years.
Of those jobs, what was the average wage? How many of those jobs would no native-born people accept?
Some jobs are even created by immigrants, and would not exist if those immigrants did not come here.
The United States has had immigrants coming in throughout its history, and the economy has had ups and downs anyway.
Again, why blame immigrants for this problem?
You are obviously under investigation. Run for it!
Scary. Back to hiding the money under the mattress.
No.
... for both CUPS and HTMLDOC.
This is Slashdot. So, let me point out that James Doohan lives in Redmond, Washington.
In SCO's case, they seem to hire people with no logic. Want to work for SCO? Can you make illogical jumps in your thinking? Do the following statements make sense to you?
Linux does not exist, so let's sue people for using it.
IBM stole our source code and we are going to prove it--without showing the stolen source code to anyone (even the courts) unless they sign this NDA.
The FBI should limit its work to the United States only. They can cooperate with the Romanian police from here, but not more than that. And US laws have no power in Romania or anywhere else outside this country's borders.
Put this in perspective by flipping things around. Suppose some US-based hackers infiltrated a German research facility in Argentina. Would the US allow German investigators to come here and operate like a police force? Even if they got local police or FBI cooperation? And would German federal laws have any power here in the states?
That's what is so funny. The first article insinuates that those Romanian crackers 'threaten the public investment in scientific research that benefits all mankind'. How does releasing data threaten any public investment? As a taxpayer, it does not bother me.
As for threatening the lives of the researchers there, let's hope they do not run critical systems on the network. Why would anyone put life-support systems, heating, ventilation, etc. on a network that is connected to the outside world? No, really. . . why?
All evidence points to some kind of missile fired from the ground (land or water) at the aircraft. Who fired the missile, and why, is in dispute.
The US Navy was in the area at the time. But they may not be responsible.
Alright, everybody. Stop posting. It looks like we're done here.
The last two are controversial. In those cases, people are paying a fee for something that is actually paid for by taxes. (They are charging us twice, and moving the extra money elsewhere. Where's the oversight?)
Only the people who use a service should pay for it. Only airport users should pay for airport security. The police should pay to have telephones tapped. (The police are the users of the service that is provided.)
I am not worried about terrorists disrupting the flow of commerce. I am worried about money just disappearing because it will be much easier to crack the network.
What if your payment to the credit card company (usually a bank) was diverted to an account in Turks & Caicos? How could you prove it? How could you get your money back?