Does Dell want a crack at making another Danger Sidekick?
I can see this used as an excuse to go short on the storage on a phone. The problem is that SD cards and large amounts of flash storage won't go down if the cloud goes down, are faster than the network hardware, and are not subject to the data caps that a carrier would put in.
Watson can't help you if you cut straight to the human. If they're offshore, the only thing this does is make it easier to justify people who know not your accent, language, or problem.
If one is to believe that our world is interconnected, then it only provides a model where liberty is granted only to the few who have the cash to purchase it - instead of providing it to all who seek it.
China is a case of why you don't simply just go for business friendliness, but freedom for all citizens without regard to involvement in commerce.
Compliance isn't an excuse for assisting China. But what's a few dead, organ-harvested people under the bridge who voiced their opposition to the company town?
When a business can divine where people will vote in captive campaigns, a secret ballot only exists in name.
It would only be consistent to give that ability to both sides to nullify the secret ballot (and admit its non-existence) or to provide iron-clad protections towards those who do vote yes against retaliation(to thwart coincidentally enforced "policy violations" against those identified as yes-voters).
Why should a business get all it wants while not compensating for it?
Businesses normally had that as a part of their own company, where you'd pick up how they worked as a part of paid work. You are asking someone to know about your company, in the worst possible way - as an indentured servant.
Your portrayal of it being a master-slave relationship underscores the problems that some businesses create. The only proper action is to legislate this kind of thing out of existence.
For all the freedom businesses want, why do they keep on providing the incentives for and pursuing the creation of slaves?
They call those backwards standards "flexibility", when it's really disposability.
Europe isn't doing any better with its legions of temporary worker programs, done for the same reasons as anywhere - that the business inherently distrusts the worker in a relationship that depends on trust the most.
Contract positions are almost always based on distrusting the person doing the actual work. The only case it is otherwise, is if the person has a realistic chance at choosing between the same kind of work being offered temporarily or permanently.
It's a case where government interference would work - to counteract incentives for business to be dishonest with people who need honesty in the workplace the most.
The "quarter an hour less" is downward force on the upper side, not upward force from the downward side. That is, businesses expect the moon, the stars, and the kitchen sink - while paying absurdly low prices and putting in various roadblocks of their own.
If businesses weren't as bad as they have been empowered to be, you would have a point. There are good ones out there, but you're not defending them.
When you inflate the cost of employing someone to more than the benefit they can bring to the business, they just won't get a job.
Stop trying to get around the law, and the costs won't skyrocket past that point. Note my point on applying the banking concept of structuring to employment law.
You give too much room to bad employers to crowd out good ones.
See, as a simple example, minimum wage laws and 75% teen unemployment.
Minimum wage is something that kills off business asshattery by making it uneconomic, nothing more.
Start forcing businesses to hire more through an legislated "sellers' market", and your 75% goes down sharply.
"Getting an intern is so hot right now,' writes Stewart Curry. 'It's also bull**** 99% of the time.' IrishStu also provides his list of Interning's Big Lies: 1. 'You'll get training.' 2. 'We might hire you after the internship.' 3. 'You get to work with an awesome team.' 4. 'It will look great on your CV.' 5. 'You'll make great contacts.' So, who does it really hurt, Stu? 'Here's who it hurts â" interns. You have them working for nothing. Here's who it hurts â" people who need a wage in order to survive. Here's who it hurts â" companies that want to pay people a decent wage for work they do.' Inside Higher Ed also checks in on The Great Intern Debate."
In short, it encourages asshattery on the benalf of business. They can do whatever they want, and have it amount to de facto indentured servitude. Never mind that it limits the set of people to those who have outside income.
To handle that and associated problems: 1) Start making temporary work more expensive by making benefit/liability requirements multiply 2) Allow people to bypass requirements after UI runs out, or immediately if ineligible for unemployment. 3) End the idea of unpaid internships, since they're the result of unreal requirements being placed for work 4) Take a page from banks' structuring laws, put them into employment law, and make circumventing regulations nearly impossible.
First paragraph should read: We aren't really losing our geeks, nor is there an entitlement problem - for education and entitlement based arguments are made by people who have contempt for US citizens
We aren't really losing our geeks, nor is there an entitlement problem - an argument made by someone who has contempt for US citizens.
While there are many who would rather point at those who aren't businesses as "entitled", there is no thought as to the idea that businesses are too entitled to having conditions go their way - for it is too easy to pit the world against a US citizen for an equally bad concept of "competitiveness".
Our geeks still exist, despite this veiled argument that our nation has a "skills mismatch". The only mismatch in skill that the US has is that we're not as pliant as other countries at being servile to business.
Slashdot Mirror
As badly as they butcher English on signs, I'd wonder if they'd do the same in searches.
I'm quite sure that Redmond hasn't done that badly to people working there.
Does Dell want a crack at making another Danger Sidekick?
I can see this used as an excuse to go short on the storage on a phone. The problem is that SD cards and large amounts of flash storage won't go down if the cloud goes down, are faster than the network hardware, and are not subject to the data caps that a carrier would put in.
Watson can't help you if you cut straight to the human. If they're offshore, the only thing this does is make it easier to justify people who know not your accent, language, or problem.
It wasn't good enough sell to the university, so they paid them outright to use Office in the cloud?
N/T
Someone would hire, if all that could be done was direct hires without corruption of that intent.
Those who refuse to hire would end up shooting their own foot, and lose to those who choose to hire.
The problem is on the employer's side. Not mine.
China will just reach for the gun and not bother with the knife. Then it'll harvest Microsoft for its IP and dispose of the rest.
Bing is the sound of the bullet striking metal after passing through the skull of someone who didn't have enough favor or cash to buy their freedom.
If one is to believe that our world is interconnected, then it only provides a model where liberty is granted only to the few who have the cash to purchase it - instead of providing it to all who seek it.
China is a case of why you don't simply just go for business friendliness, but freedom for all citizens without regard to involvement in commerce.
Compliance isn't an excuse for assisting China. But what's a few dead, organ-harvested people under the bridge who voiced their opposition to the company town?
When a business can divine where people will vote in captive campaigns, a secret ballot only exists in name.
It would only be consistent to give that ability to both sides to nullify the secret ballot (and admit its non-existence) or to provide iron-clad protections towards those who do vote yes against retaliation(to thwart coincidentally enforced "policy violations" against those identified as yes-voters).
"A lot of the injustices in China aren't necessarily new, but people are just starting to hear about them."
Wait until they hear what really happened in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Or what their company town's party boss was really doing to the town.
Why should a business get all it wants while not compensating for it?
Businesses normally had that as a part of their own company, where you'd pick up how they worked as a part of paid work. You are asking someone to know about your company, in the worst possible way - as an indentured servant.
Your portrayal of it being a master-slave relationship underscores the problems that some businesses create. The only proper action is to legislate this kind of thing out of existence.
For all the freedom businesses want, why do they keep on providing the incentives for and pursuing the creation of slaves?
They call those backwards standards "flexibility", when it's really disposability.
Europe isn't doing any better with its legions of temporary worker programs, done for the same reasons as anywhere - that the business inherently distrusts the worker in a relationship that depends on trust the most.
You haven't used a good firearm?
Contract positions are almost always based on distrusting the person doing the actual work. The only case it is otherwise, is if the person has a realistic chance at choosing between the same kind of work being offered temporarily or permanently.
It's a case where government interference would work - to counteract incentives for business to be dishonest with people who need honesty in the workplace the most.
Then the next addon will be a Kinect controlled gun to shoot birds down.
Yes, I have, and one that was well over MW.
The "quarter an hour less" is downward force on the upper side, not upward force from the downward side. That is, businesses expect the moon, the stars, and the kitchen sink - while paying absurdly low prices and putting in various roadblocks of their own.
If businesses weren't as bad as they have been empowered to be, you would have a point. There are good ones out there, but you're not defending them.
When you inflate the cost of employing someone to more than the benefit they can bring to the business, they just won't get a job.
Stop trying to get around the law, and the costs won't skyrocket past that point. Note my point on applying the banking concept of structuring to employment law.
You give too much room to bad employers to crowd out good ones.
See, as a simple example, minimum wage laws and 75% teen unemployment.
Minimum wage is something that kills off business asshattery by making it uneconomic, nothing more.
Start forcing businesses to hire more through an legislated "sellers' market", and your 75% goes down sharply.
"Getting an intern is so hot right now,' writes Stewart Curry. 'It's also bull**** 99% of the time.' IrishStu also provides his list of Interning's Big Lies: 1. 'You'll get training.' 2. 'We might hire you after the internship.' 3. 'You get to work with an awesome team.' 4. 'It will look great on your CV.' 5. 'You'll make great contacts.' So, who does it really hurt, Stu? 'Here's who it hurts â" interns. You have them working for nothing. Here's who it hurts â" people who need a wage in order to survive. Here's who it hurts â" companies that want to pay people a decent wage for work they do.' Inside Higher Ed also checks in on The Great Intern Debate."
In short, it encourages asshattery on the benalf of business. They can do whatever they want, and have it amount to de facto indentured servitude. Never mind that it limits the set of people to those who have outside income.
To handle that and associated problems:
1) Start making temporary work more expensive by making benefit/liability requirements multiply
2) Allow people to bypass requirements after UI runs out, or immediately if ineligible for unemployment.
3) End the idea of unpaid internships, since they're the result of unreal requirements being placed for work
4) Take a page from banks' structuring laws, put them into employment law, and make circumventing regulations nearly impossible.
Their documents might hold up in court, but their company may not.
First paragraph should read:
We aren't really losing our geeks, nor is there an entitlement problem - for education and entitlement based arguments are made by people who have contempt for US citizens
We aren't really losing our geeks, nor is there an entitlement problem - an argument made by someone who has contempt for US citizens.
While there are many who would rather point at those who aren't businesses as "entitled", there is no thought as to the idea that businesses are too entitled to having conditions go their way - for it is too easy to pit the world against a US citizen for an equally bad concept of "competitiveness".
Our geeks still exist, despite this veiled argument that our nation has a "skills mismatch". The only mismatch in skill that the US has is that we're not as pliant as other countries at being servile to business.
Why should business get to demand more when workers can't?