"here in america, we pronounce it "nuculer"
Jimmy Carter, who is the only president who was an actual nuclear engineer earlier in his career, pronounced it this way.
"You just equated unionization with sexual harassment? I can't reason with you"
The comparison involves forced unionization, not unionization in general.
Both involving forcing workers to do something which might be against their interest, and has nothing at all to do with the job at hand. Yes, sexual harassment is worse, but the situation is similar.
What is so wrong about letting each worker decide whether or not to join? Perhaps you are the one who cannot be reasoned with if you hold basic workers' rights in such contempt.
That is one nasty web page. It is made to LOOK like an unclosable cross between a popup add and an error message covers most of the material. Fortunately, the web page itself is killable.
That sounds like it. I might be mixing together space episodes and CCCP episodes, but I remember the details such as the Merv Griffin show being hosted in a space capsule. Guests included HAL-9000 and George Plimpton. Plimpton was ridiculing George Lucas' Atari joysticks.
Also, there was the "Russian minicam" used in CCCP-1. Looked like a full-sized fridge a bazooka mounted on it.
"I've got a gremlin and a huge rubber band... now if I only had 4 friends!"
Does anyone else remember the old SCTV storyline in which Dr Tongue (John Candy) launched a space mission? The rocket appeared to be a Saturn V with a Chevy Vega glued to the nose.
Thanks for the price! It must be "Generous Mod Monday". I was modded as insightful in the parent post for pointing out that the article was slashdotted.
"so if you really want an exact phrase you should add a + in front of the quoted phrase."
I just now tried this, and the results were the same (2 of first 10 not containing phrase). I even tried putting a + in front of each word. Still the same.
"OK, so Google has a bug in its documentation. That's not uncommon."
That would make sense, but someone at Google told me that it was supposed to produce accurate results (as per documentation) and that they knew of the bug and would fix it. This was about 4 years ago.
Read the parent post. I put the search phrase in quotes, which gets rid of the logic parsing that you detail. The cached version of www.be.com does contain the phrase, by the way. According to Google's documentation, the result is supposed to contain the phrase in it.
"The following words are very common and were not included in your search: to be to be"
This used to be a major problem, and because of this faulty design, phrase searches were just about useless in Google. Putting the phrase in quotes pretty much gets rid of this problem.
"To enter a query into Google, just type in a few descriptive words and hit the 'enter' key (or click on the Google Search button) for a list of relevant web pages. Since Google only returns web pages that contain all the words in your query, refining or narrowing your search is as simple as adding more words to the search terms you have already entered..."
Look at the emphasized words. It clearly states that the results will contain the query. They do... sometimes.
"Who doesn't? How can you expect one search engine to do everything perfectly with present technology?"
The technology is not rocket science. Altavista.com has returned 100% accurate/relevant results for years. It still does. Google has a lot more results, so I use it instead, but is it too much to ask for to filter out bogus/irrelevant results from the returns?
"This project involves more than 14 tons of sodium metal and a 10-foot stainless steel sphere."
I sure don't want to be around when lightning strikes one of the scientists during one of the experiments. The reign of Magneto is coming, only he won't be a mutant like we expected.
"Unions help keep your ass from being fired without a reason"
Tell that to the workers in the newspaper strike in the Midwest about 10 years ago who were fired in a lockout during a labor dispute. A few of them got their jobs back a couple of years later. It was just the union members. Then there are all the factories and stores which are forced to close due to costs after they are unionized. Great job security here!
Where does it say this? When I read the documentation, it mentioned that the "pages linked to" was used for ranking, not results.
I've seen bogus/irrelevant listings like this many times before in Google. Altavista results tend to be more relevant/accurate. However, there are much fewer of them.
They have some bugs to work out. A search on "to be or not to be" typically produces from 2 to 3 error results in the first ten. That is, if you search on the phrase (including quotes) you get page results that do not contain the phrase.
"If you can't see the difference between labor unions and a PAC, then I really don't know what to say"
There's none at all. One political interest/pressure group/ special interest group should be treated like any other.
"Job safety for factory workers, overtime for long hours, etc. Again, they have the problem that they can *only* get these benefits if everybody agrees to them"
These are more often than not a result of federal legislation, not unions.
"You don't want a minimum wage that is set too high (will definitely effect things negatively), but IMHO you don't want to get rid of it either."
Why not get rid of it altogether? It causes some harm, and does no good.
"It's entirely likely that the girls could have safer conditions, and be paid higher without effecting the cost of linen (depending on many factors, I know)."
The safety has little to do with the costs. Yes, they could have paid higher,and would have had to fire workers to make up for it. Or raise prices. It would have been best left to the people involved to determine the wage, not government.
"In most other places you MAY not be forced to join a union. You DO have to pay dues that cover things like bargaining-things that help the WORKER"
If you pay dues, you have been forced to join. You are using weasel words. It is like saying "I am not a member of the NRA, but I pay dues to it". As for "helping the worker", that is very much in dispute, and it is union-thug spin. It helps some workers, not others. The workers disagree with you.
"Actually, I would say that employees in both stores have the choice in most states."
"But you can get a refund of the percentage of contributions that went for political activity."
We know this does not happen. It is all a slush fund, an workers are threatened if they try to get their money back. There is also a problem with taking the political money in the first place. Why not have paycheck protection so the contributions are entirely voluntary? The unions always put roadblocks in the way to make it hard for people to get their refunds. There would be no problem if membership was voluntary. Then the union could do whatever it wanted to with the money.
Meijer employees in Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Michigan do NOT have this choice. They are forced. I think this covers the vast majority of Meijer stores.
"In my opinion, though, the chance of you being able to unionize at Wal-Mart (and stay employed) is slim"
Nothing stops you from giving money to the union. There is much more choice there.
"Next time, please research a little before spouting off..."
"Perhaps you have never heard of the terms "closed" and "open" shop, and "right-to-work laws? 22 states have right to work laws in which you do not have to join a union OR pay dues to be employed"
But you did not look into which states actually had such protections for workers, did you?
There is nothing new about blogs except for the word. I remember seeing lots of what could be called blogs 8 or so years ago. When the term "blog" first became big a year or two ago, I had to spend some time to find out "what does this mean"? as everything called a blog was just an old-fashioned web diary under another name. It turned out that the word really didn't mean anything new.
Slashdot Mirror
Only when McDonald's finds a way to make mcnuggets out of them will we be able to work out a lasting, final peace with them.
A night club? I thought it was a sandwich.
That's just like the Borg!
"Different Mating Habits"
Too bad your message title won't ever appear in a Trekkie message board. If you don't ever mate, you won't have mating habits.
"here in america, we pronounce it "nuculer" Jimmy Carter, who is the only president who was an actual nuclear engineer earlier in his career, pronounced it this way.
I love bees.. Not only do they survive nuclear winter, but unlike cockroaches they wear cool rugby shirts. Sting on, my buzzy cousins! Sting on!
Looks like it would be "for-ortytwo-woe". Like that old Brad Pitt movie "Se-Seven-En"
The comparison involves forced unionization, not unionization in general. Both involving forcing workers to do something which might be against their interest, and has nothing at all to do with the job at hand. Yes, sexual harassment is worse, but the situation is similar.
What is so wrong about letting each worker decide whether or not to join? Perhaps you are the one who cannot be reasoned with if you hold basic workers' rights in such contempt.
That is one nasty web page. It is made to LOOK like an unclosable cross between a popup add and an error message covers most of the material. Fortunately, the web page itself is killable.
Also, there was the "Russian minicam" used in CCCP-1. Looked like a full-sized fridge a bazooka mounted on it.
Does anyone else remember the old SCTV storyline in which Dr Tongue (John Candy) launched a space mission? The rocket appeared to be a Saturn V with a Chevy Vega glued to the nose.
Thanks for the price! It must be "Generous Mod Monday". I was modded as insightful in the parent post for pointing out that the article was slashdotted.
Dang article is slashdotted. How much does this card cost?
Here is where it says that results will contain the phrase: http://www.google.com/help/basics.html
I just now tried this, and the results were the same (2 of first 10 not containing phrase). I even tried putting a + in front of each word. Still the same.
That would make sense, but someone at Google told me that it was supposed to produce accurate results (as per documentation) and that they knew of the bug and would fix it. This was about 4 years ago.
Read the parent post. I put the search phrase in quotes, which gets rid of the logic parsing that you detail. The cached version of www.be.com does contain the phrase, by the way. According to Google's documentation, the result is supposed to contain the phrase in it.
"The following words are very common and were not included in your search: to be to be"
This used to be a major problem, and because of this faulty design, phrase searches were just about useless in Google. Putting the phrase in quotes pretty much gets rid of this problem.
"To enter a query into Google, just type in a few descriptive words and hit the 'enter' key (or click on the Google Search button) for a list of relevant web pages. Since Google only returns web pages that contain all the words in your query, refining or narrowing your search is as simple as adding more words to the search terms you have already entered..."
Look at the emphasized words. It clearly states that the results will contain the query. They do... sometimes.
The technology is not rocket science. Altavista.com has returned 100% accurate/relevant results for years. It still does. Google has a lot more results, so I use it instead, but is it too much to ask for to filter out bogus/irrelevant results from the returns?
I sure don't want to be around when lightning strikes one of the scientists during one of the experiments. The reign of Magneto is coming, only he won't be a mutant like we expected.
Tell that to the workers in the newspaper strike in the Midwest about 10 years ago who were fired in a lockout during a labor dispute. A few of them got their jobs back a couple of years later. It was just the union members. Then there are all the factories and stores which are forced to close due to costs after they are unionized. Great job security here!
I've seen bogus/irrelevant listings like this many times before in Google. Altavista results tend to be more relevant/accurate. However, there are much fewer of them.
They have some bugs to work out. A search on "to be or not to be" typically produces from 2 to 3 error results in the first ten. That is, if you search on the phrase (including quotes) you get page results that do not contain the phrase.
There's none at all. One political interest /pressure group/ special interest group should be treated like any other.
"Job safety for factory workers, overtime for long hours, etc. Again, they have the problem that they can *only* get these benefits if everybody agrees to them"
These are more often than not a result of federal legislation, not unions.
"You don't want a minimum wage that is set too high (will definitely effect things negatively), but IMHO you don't want to get rid of it either."
Why not get rid of it altogether? It causes some harm, and does no good.
"It's entirely likely that the girls could have safer conditions, and be paid higher without effecting the cost of linen (depending on many factors, I know)."
The safety has little to do with the costs. Yes, they could have paid higher,and would have had to fire workers to make up for it. Or raise prices. It would have been best left to the people involved to determine the wage, not government.
If you pay dues, you have been forced to join. You are using weasel words. It is like saying "I am not a member of the NRA, but I pay dues to it". As for "helping the worker", that is very much in dispute, and it is union-thug spin. It helps some workers, not others. The workers disagree with you.
"Actually, I would say that employees in both stores have the choice in most states."
"But you can get a refund of the percentage of contributions that went for political activity."
We know this does not happen. It is all a slush fund, an workers are threatened if they try to get their money back. There is also a problem with taking the political money in the first place. Why not have paycheck protection so the contributions are entirely voluntary? The unions always put roadblocks in the way to make it hard for people to get their refunds. There would be no problem if membership was voluntary. Then the union could do whatever it wanted to with the money.
Meijer employees in Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Michigan do NOT have this choice. They are forced. I think this covers the vast majority of Meijer stores.
"In my opinion, though, the chance of you being able to unionize at Wal-Mart (and stay employed) is slim"
Nothing stops you from giving money to the union. There is much more choice there.
"Next time, please research a little before spouting off..."
"Perhaps you have never heard of the terms "closed" and "open" shop, and "right-to-work laws? 22 states have right to work laws in which you do not have to join a union OR pay dues to be employed"
But you did not look into which states actually had such protections for workers, did you?
Too bad, this time, you did not practice that.
There is nothing new about blogs except for the word. I remember seeing lots of what could be called blogs 8 or so years ago. When the term "blog" first became big a year or two ago, I had to spend some time to find out "what does this mean"? as everything called a blog was just an old-fashioned web diary under another name. It turned out that the word really didn't mean anything new.