You would in fact find the left screaming about this, no matter where it came from.
And if you've ever read the real liberal media (I'm talking rags like Salon and The Nation, not so much the NY Times or NBC), you'd find that the left is criticizing the Obama administration rather heavily for continuing a lot of bad Bush administration policies regarding illegal wiretapping, "extraordinary rendition", and torture. One of the "weaknesses" of the left wing politics is an utter lack of loyalty to political leaders who don't actually stick to their liberal guns. (By contrast, right-wing media organizations and think tanks tend to swiftly punish those who dared question Bush, usually by firing them.)
See, that's all well and good, but many folks prefer to run their business by paying less than that and have their customer base be those who some other business pays enough to buy their products. It's basically saying "I'll work my employees half-to-death for cheap, while those suckers in the other companies will create my customer base".
The problem, of course, is that if everybody does this then your customer base slowly but surely shrinks as the middle and working classes get completely squeezed. The only examples I can think of where this does work are luxury goods like yachts and private aircraft.
Your absolutely correct, but for some reason the executives making decisions about where to save money in the company never seem to think that the executives and executive bonuses are the most expendable.
If my PHB is trying to make me miserable, it's just so I'll have higher mental faculties. Of course, if I fail to show a sunny and cheery disposition despite my misery, I'll be marked down as having a bad attitude.
Of course, all this can be solved by being one of the 10% of Americans who are on happy pills.
Reminds me of Al Sleet, the Hippie-Dippie Weatherman: "Now, if you look at today's weather map, you'll notice we don't have one. So try to picture yesterday's map in your mind. Temperature is 10 degrees Kelvin at Tranquility Base, which is stupid because I don't know anyone who lives at Tranquility Base. Tonight's forecast: Dark. Continued dark throughout most of the evening, with some widely-scattered light towards morning."
I have and will continue to do company work on my own hardware...
There's your problem.
Tell your employer they can have it one of two ways: either (a) provide you enough hardware to do your job, or (b) the contents of your laptop of yours, not theirs. Any other approach leads to trouble with sorting out who has copyright on what that will cost them far more than $1250 in legal expenses.
The EPA has squashed some internal opinions that went against the common belief, as has been reported on Slashdot (sorry, I could not find the link).
IIRC, the more astute/.ers pointed out that the author of those internal opinions was at best unqualified, because his training was in economics rather than a climatology.
I'm in one of the freest countries on Earth and don't see what we have to gain.
How about billions of dollars a year spent on defending us from other countries that can be redirected into scientific research, tax cuts, or universal health care programs?
Is civil war possible? Yes. Is it as likely as international war? Probably not. The experience of post-Soviet Europe suggests that economic and political ties creates an environment in which the various areas are more likely to settle their disputes with political and diplomatic action, in large part because the costs are greater.
To be politically balanced, it's worth noting that Government Sachs employees were also the core of the economic team at the George W Bush administration, and were likely to end up there in a possible McCain administration. Goldman's only political belief is "give us more money and less regulation". And it's basic political tactic is "put our guys in charge, and we'll make sure an appropriately large campaign donation goes your way and not your opponent's way".
This doesn't really make it different than most industries: corporations who engage in political wrangling will happily buy Democrats and Republicans alike.
I just violated my termination contract by telling you that. Fuck 'em - I shouldn't have had to sign that contract just to get the paycheck they owed me anyway.
If you were an employee (not a contractor), you probably didn't. In most states withholding pay like that is illegal.
That's interesting: the trial I was in had a jury with a chemist and 2 software developers. The only person booted for professional reasons was an attorney. However, this was in a county court system that put a lot of effort into making the jury pool a wider selection of people in the interests of getting a fair trial (silly concept, I know).
YMMV, but blind cynicism about what a well-run court would look like is about as useful as blind trust in the court system. If you're in an area where judges are elected, talk to the judicial candidates about your concerns regarding jury selection, and go ahead and base your vote on their answer. Yes, they may still lose/win based on TV ads that say "Judge Smith is tough on crime", but politicians actually notice when their constituents talk to them directly.
Or to put it another way: being part of a company doesn't give the people involved a mystical get-out-of-jail free card to be irresponsible or unethical.
Are investors that daft that they think this is a good idea?
I'd say investors who engaged in the stock bump are either: 1. Uninformed suckers who think that this is actually a good idea. (Most likely non-techies, probably older investors) 2. People who think that they can make a bundle by selling the stock off to people in group 1. (i.e. people who know financial markets well)
If you don't think that investors aren't often completely daft, I invite you to take a look at the wreckage of the thousands of VC-funded online businesses who never made a dime.
Slashdot Mirror
You would in fact find the left screaming about this, no matter where it came from.
And if you've ever read the real liberal media (I'm talking rags like Salon and The Nation, not so much the NY Times or NBC), you'd find that the left is criticizing the Obama administration rather heavily for continuing a lot of bad Bush administration policies regarding illegal wiretapping, "extraordinary rendition", and torture. One of the "weaknesses" of the left wing politics is an utter lack of loyalty to political leaders who don't actually stick to their liberal guns. (By contrast, right-wing media organizations and think tanks tend to swiftly punish those who dared question Bush, usually by firing them.)
That's why I'm waiting for Slackware version 17 myself.
See, that's all well and good, but many folks prefer to run their business by paying less than that and have their customer base be those who some other business pays enough to buy their products. It's basically saying "I'll work my employees half-to-death for cheap, while those suckers in the other companies will create my customer base".
The problem, of course, is that if everybody does this then your customer base slowly but surely shrinks as the middle and working classes get completely squeezed. The only examples I can think of where this does work are luxury goods like yachts and private aircraft.
Your absolutely correct, but for some reason the executives making decisions about where to save money in the company never seem to think that the executives and executive bonuses are the most expendable.
Are you saying "That's no planet ..."?
If my PHB is trying to make me miserable, it's just so I'll have higher mental faculties. Of course, if I fail to show a sunny and cheery disposition despite my misery, I'll be marked down as having a bad attitude.
Of course, all this can be solved by being one of the 10% of Americans who are on happy pills.
Who said the Dirty Brown People had to be foreign?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Padilla_(prisoner)
There's a substitute available: hydrogen. However, after a certain problem with the Hindenburg, they decided against using it in the future.
Tell me, since when does a press release for Techworld + a front-page /. article count as releasing "quietly"?
Reminds me of Al Sleet, the Hippie-Dippie Weatherman:
"Now, if you look at today's weather map, you'll notice we don't have one. So try to picture yesterday's map in your mind. Temperature is 10 degrees Kelvin at Tranquility Base, which is stupid because I don't know anyone who lives at Tranquility Base. Tonight's forecast: Dark. Continued dark throughout most of the evening, with some widely-scattered light towards morning."
I have and will continue to do company work on my own hardware ...
There's your problem.
Tell your employer they can have it one of two ways: either (a) provide you enough hardware to do your job, or (b) the contents of your laptop of yours, not theirs. Any other approach leads to trouble with sorting out who has copyright on what that will cost them far more than $1250 in legal expenses.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
-Upton Sinclair
The EPA has squashed some internal opinions that went against the common belief, as has been reported on Slashdot (sorry, I could not find the link).
IIRC, the more astute /.ers pointed out that the author of those internal opinions was at best unqualified, because his training was in economics rather than a climatology.
I believe another name for that little snippet is "buffer overflow vulnerability".
I'm in one of the freest countries on Earth and don't see what we have to gain.
How about billions of dollars a year spent on defending us from other countries that can be redirected into scientific research, tax cuts, or universal health care programs?
Is civil war possible? Yes. Is it as likely as international war? Probably not. The experience of post-Soviet Europe suggests that economic and political ties creates an environment in which the various areas are more likely to settle their disputes with political and diplomatic action, in large part because the costs are greater.
I was thinking more that we should send the Crimson Permanent Assurance after SCO's offices.
To be politically balanced, it's worth noting that Government Sachs employees were also the core of the economic team at the George W Bush administration, and were likely to end up there in a possible McCain administration. Goldman's only political belief is "give us more money and less regulation". And it's basic political tactic is "put our guys in charge, and we'll make sure an appropriately large campaign donation goes your way and not your opponent's way".
This doesn't really make it different than most industries: corporations who engage in political wrangling will happily buy Democrats and Republicans alike.
which they, and the rest of the banksters now officially own
Not exactly. GS, JPM, BoA, and a couple of other firms own the US Treasury Dept. Other industries get their cuts as well, just in different places.
It's all in Nostradamus, folks!
[edits Nostradamus page]
Not anymore!
I just violated my termination contract by telling you that. Fuck 'em - I shouldn't have had to sign that contract just to get the paycheck they owed me anyway.
If you were an employee (not a contractor), you probably didn't. In most states withholding pay like that is illegal.
That's interesting: the trial I was in had a jury with a chemist and 2 software developers. The only person booted for professional reasons was an attorney. However, this was in a county court system that put a lot of effort into making the jury pool a wider selection of people in the interests of getting a fair trial (silly concept, I know).
YMMV, but blind cynicism about what a well-run court would look like is about as useful as blind trust in the court system. If you're in an area where judges are elected, talk to the judicial candidates about your concerns regarding jury selection, and go ahead and base your vote on their answer. Yes, they may still lose/win based on TV ads that say "Judge Smith is tough on crime", but politicians actually notice when their constituents talk to them directly.
have demonstrated a fairly reasonable approach to exploitation of personal information.
So as long as our personal information is only reasonably exploited, it's a-ok?
several badgers
Badgers? Badgers? We don't need no stinkin' badgers.
Or to put it another way: being part of a company doesn't give the people involved a mystical get-out-of-jail free card to be irresponsible or unethical.
Oh really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_veil
Are investors that daft that they think this is a good idea?
I'd say investors who engaged in the stock bump are either:
1. Uninformed suckers who think that this is actually a good idea. (Most likely non-techies, probably older investors)
2. People who think that they can make a bundle by selling the stock off to people in group 1. (i.e. people who know financial markets well)
If you don't think that investors aren't often completely daft, I invite you to take a look at the wreckage of the thousands of VC-funded online businesses who never made a dime.