IMO the reason unions are anti-worker is because unions work in the best interest of the union management. Take for exapmle the whole mess with Hostess where the union bosses called it a success because the workers stood their ground, even though their members were all jobless after that (but the union bosses still retained their higher paying jobs...)
Unions are also anti-worker because most of the ones that exist today started via mafia style tactics (threatening workers who didn't join the union and pay dues with violence, in addition to threatening business owners with violence.)
Yes, pushing for higher wages is part of their motivation, but that's only because the higher your wages, the more dues they collect from you. They don't give a shit if you're a bad employee, just so long as you're a dues paying member.
Oh and who remembers the Obamacare provision that permitted union management to keep "Cadillac" health insurance plans while nobody else was allowed to?
I haven't bought a phone from the big four since...umm...I think three years now? I subscribe to t-mobile, but two of my last phones were bought from Google directly and didn't have *any* t-mobile branding (or any indication that they were intended for t-mobile for that matter.) My most recent phone (ordered it two days ago, the Galaxy Note 4 unlocked, awaiting its arrival) I bought from Best Buy.
Best Buy's labeling says it's for T-Mobile, but because they ship the SIM separately (and optionally,) I doubt it's the same variant found in t-mobile stores (it's also about $100 cheaper.) I'm guessing that's only because if they were marketing it for AT&T they'd probably push you towards a contract subsidized one. I'll see if it has any tmo branding on it after I get it, but I'm doubting it since, again, the SIM card was shipped separately (and is already in my possession.)
They don't. Look at Justin Beiber for example. The ones that have a somewhat legitimate complaint are the holdovers from the 90's and prior. Most of the people that say shit like GP are just commies who secretly desire the return of the cold war days where communism actually had power.
Arizona really isn't anywhere near as religious as you want to believe. A few things that make me say that:
- Rather lax abortion laws compared to most states. (Presently the only controversial one is one that forbids an abortion if the motivation for it is based on the race/sex of the fetus, which isn't presently in effect.) - Medicinal marijuana is legal here, and there's a VERY good chance that it will end up being legalized for recreational use in the next election. - There really isn't much of a sizable religious population here. The most represented religion is probably LDS (Mormons) and in my experience, about 90% of them self identify as "jack mormon," meaning they go to church but other than that don't practice their religion at all (including sex outside of marriage, drinking, etc.)
As for me, I'm still fine in Arizona, a few things I rather like about it:
- No fucking daylight savings. - Almost never bad weather (Most of Arizona has a moderate climate as well, it's just Maricopa County that is hot due to being in a valley. South of Phoenix (Tucson) has a cooler climate, and Flagstaff, which is about an hour drive from Phoenix, has a lot of snow skiing resorts.) - A power grid that is so damn reliable that outages are very rare events. - No fucking daylight savings. - Cheap gas compared to most places. - Roads that are so well designed that you rarely ever feel that you need a map because once given cross streets, its usually dead obvious how to get to where you're going. - Not a single toll road in the entire state. - Lots of lakes for boating. - Slightly below the national average cost of living. - No fucking daylight savings. - A very good place to work in IT (lots of jobs for it, and good pay compared to cost of living. In fact the worlds most advanced semiconductor plant resides in Chandler.) - Very low hippie population. - Even though Phoenix is the 6th most populous city in the US, rioting practically doesn't happen here (when it does, it's usually on university campuses and is so small the media barely makes a mention of it.) This means that if you run a small business here, you don't have to worry about a mob randomly torching it like you see happen quite a bit in other cities.
Pretty much the biggest thing I hear about from the ultra left in other states is SB1070. Contrary to their popular belief, SB1070 isn't a "papers please" law. The Federal immigration laws are already written that way (federal law requires immigrants to have documentation on them at all times.) SB1070 is about a 10 page law that just says Arizona police have the authority to enforce existing federal immigration laws, and offers guidelines for enforcement (which included how to enforce that particular already existing federal requirement.) That's it.
I'm kind of wondering if this story might not necessarily even be applicable to game making. From TFA:
“Given that girls’ attainment in literacy is higher than boys across all stages of the primary and secondary school curriculum, it may be that explicitly tying programming to an activity that they tend to do well in leads to a commensurate gain in their programming skills," said Dr Good.
“In other words, if girls’ stories are typically more complex and well developed, then when creating stories in games, their stories will also require more sophisticated programs in order for their games to work.”
I actually remember that from grade school, the girls were usually more literate and more patient for reading/story time than the boys were. The boys were more looking forward to recess/mischief/etc at those times. Especially the mischief part for me.
At arraignment they intentionally put the more serious cases on the docket before yours because they wanted to intimidate you.
That wouldn't make any sense because I saw people getting whacked with some high and some low offenses. This also wasn't the arraignment when I saw people getting the book thrown at them, this was after they had already plead guilty before. (I met with the prosecutor on two separate occasions, both of which were after the initial arraignment.)
What's actually funny was during the arraignment I plead not guilty, but the idiot court recorder entered a guilty plea for me. After they told me to go sit back down, I looked at the form and it told me to go to a sentencing hearing. I cut in line and walked back up to the recorder asking WTF why don't I get to argue my case before sentencing? She then tells me that you have to go to sentencing after you plea guilty. I had to tell her that I plead not guilty which apparently caused some kind of ruckus behind the scenes. Anyways they gave me a different form that set a date for a pre-trial conference, which was where I was to first speak with the prosecutor.
It was before the pre-trial conference where I was hearing some people receive their sentencing, which I guess the pre-trial conference and the sentencing are all done in the same court room.
I doubt it. The specific offense I was being charged for didn't even carry a jail sentence, just a fine and some kind of probation. That's why I didn't get a public defender (apparently that's reserved ONLY for charges that carry a potential jail sentence, even if it's a short one.)
I wasn't even arrested or anything, I was just given a ticket not much different than a traffic ticket, asked for my index finger print, and was told to sign the form and show up for court at x date.
There are already existing laws that cover incorrect information. Correct information itself is never out of date. If someone has been charged with a crime, that fact stays, even if s/he was found not guilty. Information on the second world war is out of date as well, shall we just erase that from history?
You may be on to something there with European behavior. Look at how Germany suppresses *any* historical artifacts from that era (they're illegal contraband) or how almost no Italians seem to remember that Italy itself was the birthplace of fascism.
I don't know if I buy that prosecutors throw *everything* they can at you. I was charged with shoplifting once, and I didn't even get a public defender. Instead had to argue my case with the prosecutor directly, and she herself filed a motion to dismiss, which the judge approved. She said her goal was justice.
Just prior to that (I had to sit in the court room and watch her and other prosecutors argue their case against other defendants until it was my turn) I watched her tell the judge that she wasn't offering any kind of plea deal against the previous defendant and that she wanted to go to trial with him, which I'm guessing in his case she had some pretty clear cut evidence for conviction.
(I went home very relieved that day as I had just gotten done watching the BOOK getting THROWN at people by the judge for similar crimes just prior to the judge smiling at me and telling me my case had been dismissed and I may leave.)
Honestly I fucking hate the term "progressive" in the political sense. Anything you do that works towards changing anything is considered progress, even if its changing it for the worse. Prohibitionists referred to themselves as "progressives" for example. As did the Nazis on a few occasions.
At the end of the day, a "progressive" is just a self-righteous fucktard label that somebody applies to themselves when they're convinced that their opinions are the only correct ones.
To add to that, in Arizona, power outages occur maybe once a year for any given area, and failures are rarely (perhaps never) the result of the grid itself failing. Last time it happened for me, it was because some derp wrecked their car into a transformer (and being able to damage a transformer in such a way with a car is a rather difficult thing to do because they're otherwise pretty well protected.)
I would have to agree with that. Arizona for example has a VERY reliable power grid; so reliable in fact that a lot of companies are building datacenters in Phoenix, in spite of the heat. Yet at the same time Arizona doesn't rely on storage. Phoenix in particular is powered by the Palo Verde Nuclear plant (largest in the US) as well as hydro power from Salt River Project. Arizona has so much power that it actually provides California with 25% of theirs.
Think like the DOJ telling Apple that children will now die as a result of their encryption. Is there a ring of truth to it? Maybe, but at the end of the day it's a load of crap because the days where Club Fed can ask for and receive whatever laws it wants have just gone bye-bye, and that upsets them.
You still didn't explain who has both the $2500 and the will to buy those violins. Without this pesky detail no, there's no more wealth than at the begining.
It's simple, actually: The person who buys those violins created that value they used to purchase it elsewhere. Money is just a store of value used for trade, but in and of itself isn't valuable, and in fact is only worth whatever you think its worth.
Replicate the same analogy as GP did, only with somebody who makes shoes. That person who makes shoes buys a violin. Effectively he traded several pairs of shoes for a violin.
Of course it is a zero sum game. you cannot profit unless someone else LOSES that profit to you It is possible to 'grow the pie', but not by eliminating customers
If you can grow the pie, then by definition it is NOT zero-sum. I don't mean to ad-hom, but what you said is just insanely stupid.
Currently, that would more than halve our trade deficit, not a terrible thing,
It would also cut our GDP in half.
History has always shown that if you kneecap imports in *any* way, you also do the same to domestic production. It doesn't matter if the other trade partners retaliate or not; the whole purpose of imports is to acquire goods that can't be acquired domestically (either they flat out aren't available, or the domestic knowledge and/or infrastructure isn't present, so the foreign companies can create it cheaper.) These imported goods are then used as capital for domestic production.
If that wasn't true, it wouldn't ever be economical to import; we'd just rely entirely on domestic production.
Look at the period between the market crash and Smoot-Hawley. It's relatively stable. Basically what we had during that period is comparatively the same as what we had in 2008. The jobless rate didn't really increase until after it passed.
OMFUG! An economic LITERATE amongst the Randian clueless clones. When did the web start growing up? I mean, idiots are still calling for lower taxes, like 34 years of 78% lower taxes on the top 10% somehow created a lasting peace time boom (not).
You and AC are both wrong. Tariffs indeed caused it. Look at the unemployment rate for a good six months after the stock market crash. It was basically the same as what we saw in 2008. Not good, but not particularly bad. The depression didn't begin until Smoot-Hawley passed. Imports and domestic production rise and fall with one another. This is something even the most liberal economists agree with. So if you squelch imports, guess what happens to unemployment?
The flaw in that plan is that domestic production and imports are known to rise and fall with one another. Anything that dampens imports in any way likely results in domestic job losses. The Smoot-Hawley act proved that pretty decisively.
Likewise, tariffs, and indeed any taxation on foreign goods just for the sake of being foreign, are an incredibly stupid idea. The great depression wouldn't have occurred if there was no such thing as mercantilism. We've seen worse stock market crashes than what preceded the depression, and none of the "protections" added after the fact were even needed to prevent economic collapse. If you look at the unemployment statistics for that period, you actually see it stable for some time after the market crash, (it was about the same as the numbers that we saw in 2008) but it doesn't tank until just after Smoot-Hawley passes.
That will eventually happen anyways once China's economy matures a bit more. The same thing has happened to a lot of other formerly developing countries, such as Japan.
But I'm sure that there will be another study next week that links saturated fat with erectile dysfunction, toe cancer and bleeding from the eyebrows. And around we go.
What I hate the most about those "studies" is that a link doesn't tell you much about what is actually happening, and in many cases leads to very bad conclusions. All they really do is indicate a correlation, and diet fanatics go around spouting how what everybody else does is somehow bad. This leads to fad diets and other nonsense, up to and including the craziness that is the anti-GMO movement.
we won't need to move to a 128-bit OS like we had to go from 16 to 32 to 64-bit OSs.
We probably will, just not any time soon. I think 4GB of memory was unimaginable to most computer engineers when 16-bit was becoming the norm. In fact I recall reading an RFC where somebody argued that a 64-bit IP addressing system should be enough to address the combined memory AND hard disk of every computer in the world, therefore it's unlikely we'd need anything higher. (See IEEE RFC1475, section 2.1.) Only five years later that was changed to 128-bit, and five years (totaling a decade) after that it was settled.
You might think of the time period going from one architecture to another as growing exponentially longer with each generation. After all, 2^64 is exponentially larger than 2^32, and 2^16, and 2^8.
Slashdot Mirror
IMO the reason unions are anti-worker is because unions work in the best interest of the union management. Take for exapmle the whole mess with Hostess where the union bosses called it a success because the workers stood their ground, even though their members were all jobless after that (but the union bosses still retained their higher paying jobs...)
Unions are also anti-worker because most of the ones that exist today started via mafia style tactics (threatening workers who didn't join the union and pay dues with violence, in addition to threatening business owners with violence.)
Yes, pushing for higher wages is part of their motivation, but that's only because the higher your wages, the more dues they collect from you. They don't give a shit if you're a bad employee, just so long as you're a dues paying member.
Oh and who remembers the Obamacare provision that permitted union management to keep "Cadillac" health insurance plans while nobody else was allowed to?
I haven't bought a phone from the big four since...umm...I think three years now? I subscribe to t-mobile, but two of my last phones were bought from Google directly and didn't have *any* t-mobile branding (or any indication that they were intended for t-mobile for that matter.) My most recent phone (ordered it two days ago, the Galaxy Note 4 unlocked, awaiting its arrival) I bought from Best Buy.
Best Buy's labeling says it's for T-Mobile, but because they ship the SIM separately (and optionally,) I doubt it's the same variant found in t-mobile stores (it's also about $100 cheaper.) I'm guessing that's only because if they were marketing it for AT&T they'd probably push you towards a contract subsidized one. I'll see if it has any tmo branding on it after I get it, but I'm doubting it since, again, the SIM card was shipped separately (and is already in my possession.)
They don't. Look at Justin Beiber for example. The ones that have a somewhat legitimate complaint are the holdovers from the 90's and prior. Most of the people that say shit like GP are just commies who secretly desire the return of the cold war days where communism actually had power.
Arizona really isn't anywhere near as religious as you want to believe. A few things that make me say that:
- Rather lax abortion laws compared to most states. (Presently the only controversial one is one that forbids an abortion if the motivation for it is based on the race/sex of the fetus, which isn't presently in effect.)
- Medicinal marijuana is legal here, and there's a VERY good chance that it will end up being legalized for recreational use in the next election.
- There really isn't much of a sizable religious population here. The most represented religion is probably LDS (Mormons) and in my experience, about 90% of them self identify as "jack mormon," meaning they go to church but other than that don't practice their religion at all (including sex outside of marriage, drinking, etc.)
As for me, I'm still fine in Arizona, a few things I rather like about it:
- No fucking daylight savings.
- Almost never bad weather (Most of Arizona has a moderate climate as well, it's just Maricopa County that is hot due to being in a valley. South of Phoenix (Tucson) has a cooler climate, and Flagstaff, which is about an hour drive from Phoenix, has a lot of snow skiing resorts.)
- A power grid that is so damn reliable that outages are very rare events.
- No fucking daylight savings.
- Cheap gas compared to most places.
- Roads that are so well designed that you rarely ever feel that you need a map because once given cross streets, its usually dead obvious how to get to where you're going.
- Not a single toll road in the entire state.
- Lots of lakes for boating.
- Slightly below the national average cost of living.
- No fucking daylight savings.
- A very good place to work in IT (lots of jobs for it, and good pay compared to cost of living. In fact the worlds most advanced semiconductor plant resides in Chandler.)
- Very low hippie population.
- Even though Phoenix is the 6th most populous city in the US, rioting practically doesn't happen here (when it does, it's usually on university campuses and is so small the media barely makes a mention of it.) This means that if you run a small business here, you don't have to worry about a mob randomly torching it like you see happen quite a bit in other cities.
Pretty much the biggest thing I hear about from the ultra left in other states is SB1070. Contrary to their popular belief, SB1070 isn't a "papers please" law. The Federal immigration laws are already written that way (federal law requires immigrants to have documentation on them at all times.) SB1070 is about a 10 page law that just says Arizona police have the authority to enforce existing federal immigration laws, and offers guidelines for enforcement (which included how to enforce that particular already existing federal requirement.) That's it.
I'm kind of wondering if this story might not necessarily even be applicable to game making. From TFA:
“Given that girls’ attainment in literacy is higher than boys across all stages of the primary and secondary school curriculum, it may be that explicitly tying programming to an activity that they tend to do well in leads to a commensurate gain in their programming skills," said Dr Good.
“In other words, if girls’ stories are typically more complex and well developed, then when creating stories in games, their stories will also require more sophisticated programs in order for their games to work.”
I actually remember that from grade school, the girls were usually more literate and more patient for reading/story time than the boys were. The boys were more looking forward to recess/mischief/etc at those times. Especially the mischief part for me.
How much does it cost to add a remote viewfinder to one of these? Or say use your smartphone as one?
At arraignment they intentionally put the more serious cases on the docket before yours because they wanted to intimidate you.
That wouldn't make any sense because I saw people getting whacked with some high and some low offenses. This also wasn't the arraignment when I saw people getting the book thrown at them, this was after they had already plead guilty before. (I met with the prosecutor on two separate occasions, both of which were after the initial arraignment.)
What's actually funny was during the arraignment I plead not guilty, but the idiot court recorder entered a guilty plea for me. After they told me to go sit back down, I looked at the form and it told me to go to a sentencing hearing. I cut in line and walked back up to the recorder asking WTF why don't I get to argue my case before sentencing? She then tells me that you have to go to sentencing after you plea guilty. I had to tell her that I plead not guilty which apparently caused some kind of ruckus behind the scenes. Anyways they gave me a different form that set a date for a pre-trial conference, which was where I was to first speak with the prosecutor.
It was before the pre-trial conference where I was hearing some people receive their sentencing, which I guess the pre-trial conference and the sentencing are all done in the same court room.
I doubt it. The specific offense I was being charged for didn't even carry a jail sentence, just a fine and some kind of probation. That's why I didn't get a public defender (apparently that's reserved ONLY for charges that carry a potential jail sentence, even if it's a short one.)
I wasn't even arrested or anything, I was just given a ticket not much different than a traffic ticket, asked for my index finger print, and was told to sign the form and show up for court at x date.
There are already existing laws that cover incorrect information. Correct information itself is never out of date. If someone has been charged with a crime, that fact stays, even if s/he was found not guilty. Information on the second world war is out of date as well, shall we just erase that from history?
You may be on to something there with European behavior. Look at how Germany suppresses *any* historical artifacts from that era (they're illegal contraband) or how almost no Italians seem to remember that Italy itself was the birthplace of fascism.
Well then you should have kept your wallet on blockchain.info and accessed that website from tor.
Oops...derp...I accidentally rendered TFA's point moot.
I don't know if I buy that prosecutors throw *everything* they can at you. I was charged with shoplifting once, and I didn't even get a public defender. Instead had to argue my case with the prosecutor directly, and she herself filed a motion to dismiss, which the judge approved. She said her goal was justice.
Just prior to that (I had to sit in the court room and watch her and other prosecutors argue their case against other defendants until it was my turn) I watched her tell the judge that she wasn't offering any kind of plea deal against the previous defendant and that she wanted to go to trial with him, which I'm guessing in his case she had some pretty clear cut evidence for conviction.
(I went home very relieved that day as I had just gotten done watching the BOOK getting THROWN at people by the judge for similar crimes just prior to the judge smiling at me and telling me my case had been dismissed and I may leave.)
Honestly I fucking hate the term "progressive" in the political sense. Anything you do that works towards changing anything is considered progress, even if its changing it for the worse. Prohibitionists referred to themselves as "progressives" for example. As did the Nazis on a few occasions.
At the end of the day, a "progressive" is just a self-righteous fucktard label that somebody applies to themselves when they're convinced that their opinions are the only correct ones.
To add to that, in Arizona, power outages occur maybe once a year for any given area, and failures are rarely (perhaps never) the result of the grid itself failing. Last time it happened for me, it was because some derp wrecked their car into a transformer (and being able to damage a transformer in such a way with a car is a rather difficult thing to do because they're otherwise pretty well protected.)
I would have to agree with that. Arizona for example has a VERY reliable power grid; so reliable in fact that a lot of companies are building datacenters in Phoenix, in spite of the heat. Yet at the same time Arizona doesn't rely on storage. Phoenix in particular is powered by the Palo Verde Nuclear plant (largest in the US) as well as hydro power from Salt River Project. Arizona has so much power that it actually provides California with 25% of theirs.
It's just hyperbole.
Think like the DOJ telling Apple that children will now die as a result of their encryption. Is there a ring of truth to it? Maybe, but at the end of the day it's a load of crap because the days where Club Fed can ask for and receive whatever laws it wants have just gone bye-bye, and that upsets them.
So just because the victim is a minority means they ARE wrong?
If not, what are we supposed to do, just ignore the justice system every time some people don't like the result?
You still didn't explain who has both the $2500 and the will to buy those violins. Without this pesky detail no, there's no more wealth than at the begining.
It's simple, actually: The person who buys those violins created that value they used to purchase it elsewhere. Money is just a store of value used for trade, but in and of itself isn't valuable, and in fact is only worth whatever you think its worth.
Replicate the same analogy as GP did, only with somebody who makes shoes. That person who makes shoes buys a violin. Effectively he traded several pairs of shoes for a violin.
Of course it is a zero sum game.
you cannot profit unless someone else LOSES that profit to you
It is possible to 'grow the pie', but not by eliminating customers
If you can grow the pie, then by definition it is NOT zero-sum. I don't mean to ad-hom, but what you said is just insanely stupid.
Currently, that would more than halve our trade deficit, not a terrible thing,
It would also cut our GDP in half.
History has always shown that if you kneecap imports in *any* way, you also do the same to domestic production. It doesn't matter if the other trade partners retaliate or not; the whole purpose of imports is to acquire goods that can't be acquired domestically (either they flat out aren't available, or the domestic knowledge and/or infrastructure isn't present, so the foreign companies can create it cheaper.) These imported goods are then used as capital for domestic production.
If that wasn't true, it wouldn't ever be economical to import; we'd just rely entirely on domestic production.
Look at the period between the market crash and Smoot-Hawley. It's relatively stable. Basically what we had during that period is comparatively the same as what we had in 2008. The jobless rate didn't really increase until after it passed.
OMFUG! An economic LITERATE amongst the Randian clueless clones.
When did the web start growing up?
I mean, idiots are still calling for lower taxes, like 34 years of 78% lower taxes on the top 10% somehow created a lasting peace time boom (not).
You and AC are both wrong. Tariffs indeed caused it. Look at the unemployment rate for a good six months after the stock market crash. It was basically the same as what we saw in 2008. Not good, but not particularly bad. The depression didn't begin until Smoot-Hawley passed. Imports and domestic production rise and fall with one another. This is something even the most liberal economists agree with. So if you squelch imports, guess what happens to unemployment?
The flaw in that plan is that domestic production and imports are known to rise and fall with one another. Anything that dampens imports in any way likely results in domestic job losses. The Smoot-Hawley act proved that pretty decisively.
Likewise, tariffs, and indeed any taxation on foreign goods just for the sake of being foreign, are an incredibly stupid idea. The great depression wouldn't have occurred if there was no such thing as mercantilism. We've seen worse stock market crashes than what preceded the depression, and none of the "protections" added after the fact were even needed to prevent economic collapse. If you look at the unemployment statistics for that period, you actually see it stable for some time after the market crash, (it was about the same as the numbers that we saw in 2008) but it doesn't tank until just after Smoot-Hawley passes.
That will eventually happen anyways once China's economy matures a bit more. The same thing has happened to a lot of other formerly developing countries, such as Japan.
But I'm sure that there will be another study next week that links saturated fat with erectile dysfunction, toe cancer and bleeding from the eyebrows. And around we go.
What I hate the most about those "studies" is that a link doesn't tell you much about what is actually happening, and in many cases leads to very bad conclusions. All they really do is indicate a correlation, and diet fanatics go around spouting how what everybody else does is somehow bad. This leads to fad diets and other nonsense, up to and including the craziness that is the anti-GMO movement.
we won't need to move to a 128-bit OS like we had to go from 16 to 32 to 64-bit OSs.
We probably will, just not any time soon. I think 4GB of memory was unimaginable to most computer engineers when 16-bit was becoming the norm. In fact I recall reading an RFC where somebody argued that a 64-bit IP addressing system should be enough to address the combined memory AND hard disk of every computer in the world, therefore it's unlikely we'd need anything higher. (See IEEE RFC1475, section 2.1.) Only five years later that was changed to 128-bit, and five years (totaling a decade) after that it was settled.
You might think of the time period going from one architecture to another as growing exponentially longer with each generation. After all, 2^64 is exponentially larger than 2^32, and 2^16, and 2^8.