1. "how much the labor wanted for their jobs" The union was protesting wage cuts, not demanding wage increases. Management had already agreed to what their labor was worth, and then re-neged on that agreement.
2. "The only real motivation for the management team to stay" How come management needs nice big bonuses in order to stay when labor is supposed to accept 25-30% wage cuts without complaint?
3. Regardless of how large or small the change is, it certainly bad form. An equivalent scenario: Your sister tells you she's broke and the rent is due, and being a decent fellow you help her out. She gets your check, and then flies to Cancun for a week. 3 months later, she calls you again and says she's in a jam and needs your financial help. Are you as quick to support her the second time? How about the third time?
And, as a sibling poster pointed out, this was also about robbing the entirety of the workers' pension fund.
The reason that Hostess went under is that management refused to play nice with their unionized workforce, and they decided that they'd rather have no company than a union shop. Now that the union is busted, they've restarted production with a non-unionized workforce, "generously" allowing those workers to return to their old jobs at about 1/3 what they were paid before.
And if you're wondering which side to blame: Before the strike that ended Hostess, there were a couple rounds of the union taking pay and benefit cuts followed by management giving themselves bonuses for convincing the union to accept the cuts. That's why the union didn't buy the "but if you don't take the cuts, the company will go under" argument.
I yet to have an employer who treats sysadmins badly.
I've seen a lot of behaviors from my employers that I definitely think qualify as treating them badly (which is why I'm in development instead). Some of the practices: - Demand that sysadmins be on call at all times. As in 24x7x365. Sysadmins are expected to be ready to deal with a perceived emergency at 2 AM on Christmas morning. - Demand that sysadmins work in the wee hours with no extra compensation, including time off during the day afterwords. - For that matter, regular demands of overtime. - Refusing to accept a sysadmin's recommendation, and then blaming (and in more extreme cases firing) the sysadmin when a different plan fails. - Having a career path that dead-ends at the team lead level (this one is pretty common among all IT-related professions, actually).
Every language is unsafe, but some almost try to be as unsafe as possible.
For example, the oldest (and until fairly recently, only) way of handling database queries in PHP pretty much asks for you to be vulnerable to SQL injection attacks, because there's no parameterization so all you can do is awkwardly run a hodgepodge of escaping functions and hope they work. By contrast, Perl, Java, Python, and C# all provide support for parameterizing queries in their standard approaches to handling database queries about 10 years before PHP did. That's the kind of thing that gives PHP its bad reputation.
He was also willing to be questioned by videoconference, or to meet with Swedish police or prosecutors in the UK (before the UK police chased him into the Ecuador embassy).
Sweden refused those options as well. This isn't in any way about getting him to answer questions, this is about having him physically in Sweden, with every indication that they'll ship him to the US immediately. The US, for its part, has made it abundantly clear that they will treat Assange in the sort of way that would make the years Bradley Manning spent in the brig look like a picnic.
moving towards even more state control over the individual
I was with you right up until there.
Who's the person or organization that oppresses you the most times each week? It's probably not the cops, because chances are you don't interact with cops on a regular basis. It's probably not the NSA, although they're reading your stuff and possibly listening to your phone calls and all sorts of other bad stuff. It's probably not the FBI, who you almost definitely don't interact with. Nope, it's probably your boss and the organization he or she represents that makes coercive demands on you, several days a week at least.
Now, your boss can't lock you up like the government can. But your boss can definitely screw up your life, for any reason or no reason at all, any time they want.
No, I made the far better choice of getting a job that pays more than minimum wage when I was 15 and still in high school.... Maybe the reason people can't get name-brand Cheerios (I don't anyway, waste of money) is that they make really poor life choices?
Sometimes they made bad decisions. Sometimes they weren't making decisions in the same circumstances as you did, like: 1. It was legal to work at age 15 where you lived. In a lot of places in the US, it's now illegal to work before you're 16.
2. Someone was looking to hire an employee somewhere near where you lived. That's not common right now.
3. That someone was willing to employ a teenager.
4. You could get to your place of work. Maybe you had a public transit system, maybe the job was close enough to walk to, maybe somebody drove you, but somehow you were able to do that.
5. You didn't have to drop out of high school to do the work, which means about 10-15 hours a week maximum.
6. You had the parenting, educational opportunities, and equipment needed to have marketable skills, or you got above-market wages for unskilled labor. Frequently, unskilled labor gets minimum wage or close to it.
7. You could save all the money you earned for college, rather than supporting your family with it. Many teenage workers use their money to help pay the family rent or keep their siblings fed.
8. You almost definitely went to college when it was far cheaper than it is now. For example, if you worked 15 hours a week at $10 an hour for 3 years (age 15-8), you would earn about $18,000 after taxes. That's about 25% of 4-year tuition at your nearby state university.
9. You and your wife probably didn't have to deal with: (a) serious illness or accident, either of yourselves or of someone you consider yourself obligated to care for, (b) a layoff of either of you in the recent recession, (c) a serious natural disaster such as a hurricane, tornado, or earthquake, or (d) a house fire.
I'm not saying you didn't do the right things because you clearly did. What I'm saying is that you did as well as you did in part because you made the right decisions, and in part because you were lucky - you had parents, teachers, bosses, siblings, future wife, etc making decisions that gave you the chance to make the right decision.
Yes, there are: 18% of all households in the US are in poverty, which is defined as being unable to afford food, water, or housing without government assistance. About 1.5 million households are in extreme poverty, defined as living on less than $2 per person per day.
Because by forcing more people into the already overcrowded city, the stand to benefit by that newcomer's taxes. They may not give it the rational thought to completely arrive at that conclusion consciously, but that is basically the crux of it. "What do *I* get out of the deal?"
In theory at least, the idea is that if you move to the city, you can get a better job and all the benefits that you mention of living in a better-served urban area. It's not just about your taxes, of course: Sure, you might be paying taxes (indirectly, if you're renting) but you're also now making use of whatever government services you get in your new home, and the rural area that you used to live in is no longer getting your tax money.
Rural and urban depend on each other: Without rural America, urban America doesn't eat or drive or turn the lights on and becomes an impoverished wasteland. Without the wealthier urban America's support, rural America could very easily be, as you correctly point out, an impoverished wasteland. Both sides of that divide should take stock of those facts, and realize that it behooves both to push for improvements everywhere.
The really sad part about the OWASP Top 10 lists is that they don't change very much. In a perfect world, none of the 2010 top 10 would be on this list, because they would be solved, but the fact of the matter is that most organizations don't care.
Sit around collecting dirt on someone long enough, and you will find something that looks suspicious. Then, if you want to smack someone down, legitimately or not, you've collected an excuse to do so.
For example, let's say you'd sent a compromising photo to your significant other when you were 16. 20 years later, you're leading a politically inconvenient trade union, and whoops, waddaya know, all of a sudden you're done in for distributing child pornography.
The reason the other justices ask a lot of questions is not because they want to hear themselves talk. They walk in there having already read the gist of what each lawyer is arguing in the briefs that were filed a long time ago. What they're usually after in oral argument is counsel's response to any issues the justices may have thought of that counsel did not, and those are the questions they typically pepper counsel with.
Some reasons that you get unanimous SCOTUS decisions: 1. SCOTUS took the case primarily to send a strong message to current and future courts and legislatures and presidents. A lot of those kinds of decisions get handled at the circuit court level, but in future case law it's one thing to cite that the Ninth Circuit said this or the First Circuit said that, and it's another thing entirely to cite a unanimous decision by a fairly divided Supreme Court. 2. It can be a judicial smack-down when a circuit court gets something wildly wrong. 3. It could be that the Chief Justice wants to get everyone to speak with one voice on a particular issue. This usually causes decisions to take a while, as the Chief convinces the 4 holdouts to agree with the majority.
Slashdot Mirror
1. "how much the labor wanted for their jobs"
The union was protesting wage cuts, not demanding wage increases. Management had already agreed to what their labor was worth, and then re-neged on that agreement.
2. "The only real motivation for the management team to stay"
How come management needs nice big bonuses in order to stay when labor is supposed to accept 25-30% wage cuts without complaint?
3. Regardless of how large or small the change is, it certainly bad form. An equivalent scenario: Your sister tells you she's broke and the rent is due, and being a decent fellow you help her out. She gets your check, and then flies to Cancun for a week. 3 months later, she calls you again and says she's in a jam and needs your financial help. Are you as quick to support her the second time? How about the third time?
And, as a sibling poster pointed out, this was also about robbing the entirety of the workers' pension fund.
The reason that Hostess went under is that management refused to play nice with their unionized workforce, and they decided that they'd rather have no company than a union shop. Now that the union is busted, they've restarted production with a non-unionized workforce, "generously" allowing those workers to return to their old jobs at about 1/3 what they were paid before.
And if you're wondering which side to blame: Before the strike that ended Hostess, there were a couple rounds of the union taking pay and benefit cuts followed by management giving themselves bonuses for convincing the union to accept the cuts. That's why the union didn't buy the "but if you don't take the cuts, the company will go under" argument.
Well, we replaced it with an electronic brain, a simple one. All it needed to say was "What?" and "Where's the tea?"
Does anyone still believe them?
Yes. And they're a part of the problem.
No, he wanted to say "seized". But I blame Noah Webster: Before he came along, people spelled words any way they dam wel pleezed.
just ceased on an opportunity
I don't think that means what you think it means.
I can't wait before my social mobile app goes viral, using new media on tablet interfaces!
We should be buying the more effective American version! Even if it costs 15-20 times as much, it's worth it.
I yet to have an employer who treats sysadmins badly.
I've seen a lot of behaviors from my employers that I definitely think qualify as treating them badly (which is why I'm in development instead). Some of the practices:
- Demand that sysadmins be on call at all times. As in 24x7x365. Sysadmins are expected to be ready to deal with a perceived emergency at 2 AM on Christmas morning.
- Demand that sysadmins work in the wee hours with no extra compensation, including time off during the day afterwords.
- For that matter, regular demands of overtime.
- Refusing to accept a sysadmin's recommendation, and then blaming (and in more extreme cases firing) the sysadmin when a different plan fails.
- Having a career path that dead-ends at the team lead level (this one is pretty common among all IT-related professions, actually).
Every language is unsafe, but some almost try to be as unsafe as possible.
For example, the oldest (and until fairly recently, only) way of handling database queries in PHP pretty much asks for you to be vulnerable to SQL injection attacks, because there's no parameterization so all you can do is awkwardly run a hodgepodge of escaping functions and hope they work. By contrast, Perl, Java, Python, and C# all provide support for parameterizing queries in their standard approaches to handling database queries about 10 years before PHP did. That's the kind of thing that gives PHP its bad reputation.
He was also willing to be questioned by videoconference, or to meet with Swedish police or prosecutors in the UK (before the UK police chased him into the Ecuador embassy).
Sweden refused those options as well. This isn't in any way about getting him to answer questions, this is about having him physically in Sweden, with every indication that they'll ship him to the US immediately. The US, for its part, has made it abundantly clear that they will treat Assange in the sort of way that would make the years Bradley Manning spent in the brig look like a picnic.
moving towards even more state control over the individual
I was with you right up until there.
Who's the person or organization that oppresses you the most times each week? It's probably not the cops, because chances are you don't interact with cops on a regular basis. It's probably not the NSA, although they're reading your stuff and possibly listening to your phone calls and all sorts of other bad stuff. It's probably not the FBI, who you almost definitely don't interact with. Nope, it's probably your boss and the organization he or she represents that makes coercive demands on you, several days a week at least.
Now, your boss can't lock you up like the government can. But your boss can definitely screw up your life, for any reason or no reason at all, any time they want.
driving in some heavy NYC traffic
Well, there's your problem right there: Why drive in New York City when the tubes can probably get you there more safely and easily?
I actually pulled that picture off of the ACLU website, originally: It's a map of the entire US.
No, I made the far better choice of getting a job that pays more than minimum wage when I was 15 and still in high school. ... Maybe the reason people can't get name-brand Cheerios (I don't anyway, waste of money) is that they make really poor life choices?
Sometimes they made bad decisions. Sometimes they weren't making decisions in the same circumstances as you did, like:
1. It was legal to work at age 15 where you lived. In a lot of places in the US, it's now illegal to work before you're 16.
2. Someone was looking to hire an employee somewhere near where you lived. That's not common right now.
3. That someone was willing to employ a teenager.
4. You could get to your place of work. Maybe you had a public transit system, maybe the job was close enough to walk to, maybe somebody drove you, but somehow you were able to do that.
5. You didn't have to drop out of high school to do the work, which means about 10-15 hours a week maximum.
6. You had the parenting, educational opportunities, and equipment needed to have marketable skills, or you got above-market wages for unskilled labor. Frequently, unskilled labor gets minimum wage or close to it.
7. You could save all the money you earned for college, rather than supporting your family with it. Many teenage workers use their money to help pay the family rent or keep their siblings fed.
8. You almost definitely went to college when it was far cheaper than it is now. For example, if you worked 15 hours a week at $10 an hour for 3 years (age 15-8), you would earn about $18,000 after taxes. That's about 25% of 4-year tuition at your nearby state university.
9. You and your wife probably didn't have to deal with: (a) serious illness or accident, either of yourselves or of someone you consider yourself obligated to care for, (b) a layoff of either of you in the recent recession, (c) a serious natural disaster such as a hurricane, tornado, or earthquake, or (d) a house fire.
I'm not saying you didn't do the right things because you clearly did. What I'm saying is that you did as well as you did in part because you made the right decisions, and in part because you were lucky - you had parents, teachers, bosses, siblings, future wife, etc making decisions that gave you the chance to make the right decision.
Yes, there are: 18% of all households in the US are in poverty, which is defined as being unable to afford food, water, or housing without government assistance. About 1.5 million households are in extreme poverty, defined as living on less than $2 per person per day.
Because by forcing more people into the already overcrowded city, the stand to benefit by that newcomer's taxes. They may not give it the rational thought to completely arrive at that conclusion consciously, but that is basically the crux of it. "What do *I* get out of the deal?"
In theory at least, the idea is that if you move to the city, you can get a better job and all the benefits that you mention of living in a better-served urban area. It's not just about your taxes, of course: Sure, you might be paying taxes (indirectly, if you're renting) but you're also now making use of whatever government services you get in your new home, and the rural area that you used to live in is no longer getting your tax money.
Rural and urban depend on each other: Without rural America, urban America doesn't eat or drive or turn the lights on and becomes an impoverished wasteland. Without the wealthier urban America's support, rural America could very easily be, as you correctly point out, an impoverished wasteland. Both sides of that divide should take stock of those facts, and realize that it behooves both to push for improvements everywhere.
Leave Diana Ross out of this!
Here's another map of what the fans of the police state in Washington, DC want to be the constitution free zone.
Welcome to wage slavery, plebeians. And you voted your captors in.
Of course they did. If they hadn't, the other bad guys would have gotten in.
Youtube watches you!
Google searches you!
Email reads you!
MS Windows boots you!
Facebook pictures you!
Text message receives you!
Ok, I'm done, anyone else?
The really sad part about the OWASP Top 10 lists is that they don't change very much. In a perfect world, none of the 2010 top 10 would be on this list, because they would be solved, but the fact of the matter is that most organizations don't care.
Sit around collecting dirt on someone long enough, and you will find something that looks suspicious. Then, if you want to smack someone down, legitimately or not, you've collected an excuse to do so.
For example, let's say you'd sent a compromising photo to your significant other when you were 16. 20 years later, you're leading a politically inconvenient trade union, and whoops, waddaya know, all of a sudden you're done in for distributing child pornography.
The reason the other justices ask a lot of questions is not because they want to hear themselves talk. They walk in there having already read the gist of what each lawyer is arguing in the briefs that were filed a long time ago. What they're usually after in oral argument is counsel's response to any issues the justices may have thought of that counsel did not, and those are the questions they typically pepper counsel with.
Some reasons that you get unanimous SCOTUS decisions:
1. SCOTUS took the case primarily to send a strong message to current and future courts and legislatures and presidents. A lot of those kinds of decisions get handled at the circuit court level, but in future case law it's one thing to cite that the Ninth Circuit said this or the First Circuit said that, and it's another thing entirely to cite a unanimous decision by a fairly divided Supreme Court.
2. It can be a judicial smack-down when a circuit court gets something wildly wrong.
3. It could be that the Chief Justice wants to get everyone to speak with one voice on a particular issue. This usually causes decisions to take a while, as the Chief convinces the 4 holdouts to agree with the majority.