Sometimes the problem is the opposite. I worked at Fisher-Price and after Mattel took us over and things went to shit, they not only imposed those stupid time limits on phone calls (meaning, I couldn't actually take the time to SOLVE THE CUSTOMERS' PROBLEM...) but also they fired a layer of middle management.
So now, responsibilities of middle management were given to us peons - yet of course we still had the new time limits so we had to cram in being the "supervisor" in the normal call timeframe... PLUS of course we had extra work to do, middle managers' work, without a pay increase.
That's when I learned that in a corporation "empowering" you meant giving you management responsibilities without management pay.
"She was in fact guilty--this is not seriously in dispute. They offered to settle for an amount much lower than they were likely to get at trial. She refused, and when on to perjure herself while under oath, try to frame her kids, and try to destroy evidence. Any suffering she is undergoing is her own fault."
I didn't realize she had been tried and convicted of these crimes. That changes everything!
"While it's certainly unethical behavior, I don't think we should rush to blame Amazon for this and any of its future actions. It's like putting candy in front of a baby and getting upset when the baby reaches for it."
You seem to be asserting that corporations and their CEOS have the emotional maturity and ethical development of an infant.
Well I won't see those ads either because since I'm self-centered (the reason I use twitter in the first place) I don't read other people's tweets, I just tweet my own and expect them to be read and cherished.
Same here. And I also have never seen any ads on youtube at all. Maybe because I use youtube to look at videos that regular people have made about subjects I'm interested in, like musical instruments... and I upload similar videos, stuff my family might want to see, fellow hobbyists, whatever.
I suppose it's different if you're watching just the "top videos," then you might see ads... but when you think about it, even if you DON'T see ads when you watch the top videos, you're watching ads anyway because the top stuff today is all just crap to hype some artificial pop culture trend or some instant celebrity gossip bullshit. All of which is created for and exists to make someone money down the line somewhere anyway.
Regular people sharing videos - the thing YouTube was created for in the first place? It still works pretty damned well at that.
Ever hear of the Pentagon Papers? Classification is supposed to be used to protect the American people, not protect criminals in office, or protect certain classes' privileges, or protect certain corporations' contracts, or to DECEIVE the American public.
If you are privy to misuse of the law in such a way or of such abuses, it's the patriotic and moral thing to do to expose them.
We don't know (yet) what this information is, but breaking the law is sometimes justified if the law is unjust or is being used to protect uinjust actions.
The person taking such action, choosing to break a law they see as wrong faces the consequences knowingly. History will judge whether they were right or wrong.
And in general we should be uncomfortable with the idea of our government deciding that we don;t have a right to know what its doing - pretty much goes against the ideas behind the founding of this country and is abhorrent to anyone not having an authoritarian mindset.
Somehow I'm sure our country and citizens will manage to survive the release of this information that the government feels it must protect us from.
See, it was all a plan - give us a day of "Google as Bing" and demonstrate with cold hard data that people don't like Bing's style and prefer Google. Shut up carpers among stockholders that were screaming "do something!" to respond to Bing grabbing 2 percent market share, AND wipe MS's nose it it.
before you purchase this milk, I need to know - how do you plan to use it? Are you drinking it straight? Eating Count Chocula? Making Yogurt? A Flan perhaps?
The sale price will depend on your answer as some uses of milk are far more desirable than others.
But they aren't charging by the byte. They are charging a fixed rate that more than supports their business model, and then charging by the byte if you go over an amount that they have determined makes you somewhat less profitable of a customer than they would like.
AT&T is selling you a cake then having your cake and eating it too.
Used to be you could use all ATMs free. Then Bank of America decided to charge $1.00 for non-network transactions. Made major news articles, people were outraged for a few minutes. Then Wells Fargo announced they were following suit. Soon EVERYONE charged $1.00 for out of network transactions.
After a bit, Bank of America accounced they were upping the charge from $1 to a higher amount. A minor blip in the news, then others announced they were following suit.
or the article it's sourced from, so I decided to do a little research on my own to see if this story is true. So I searched google news for the subject matter and what I found was...... oh wait a second, just a minute someone's at the door.
Actually, here in Sweden, coordinated efforts from bloggers focused attention on a surveillance law our politicians tried to sneak through parlament without anyone noticing. In the end, the law was only delayed and slightly modified, but the newspapers started writing a lot more about the issue and people seem more aware of the problem now.
So you're saying that the effect of the coordinated efforts was that instead of the populace being unaware that they are fucked and there's nothing they can do about it, they're now AWARE that they're fucked and there's nothing they can do about it?
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes the problem is the opposite. I worked at Fisher-Price and after Mattel took us over and things went to shit, they not only imposed those stupid time limits on phone calls (meaning, I couldn't actually take the time to SOLVE THE CUSTOMERS' PROBLEM...) but also they fired a layer of middle management.
So now, responsibilities of middle management were given to us peons - yet of course we still had the new time limits so we had to cram in being the "supervisor" in the normal call timeframe... PLUS of course we had extra work to do, middle managers' work, without a pay increase.
That's when I learned that in a corporation "empowering" you meant giving you management responsibilities without management pay.
In 1930s newspaper cartoon world, XXX means a barrel of rum.
I mean shit, yes, the city of NY would like to pretend they're the whole state, but there's like, a lot more than NYC...
"She was in fact guilty--this is not seriously in dispute. They offered to settle for an amount much lower than they were likely to get at trial. She refused, and when on to perjure herself while under oath, try to frame her kids, and try to destroy evidence. Any suffering she is undergoing is her own fault."
I didn't realize she had been tried and convicted of these crimes. That changes everything!
"While it's certainly unethical behavior, I don't think we should rush to blame Amazon for this and any of its future actions. It's like putting candy in front of a baby and getting upset when the baby reaches for it."
You seem to be asserting that corporations and their CEOS have the emotional maturity and ethical development of an infant.
Ok, I'll give you that much.
Well I won't see those ads either because since I'm self-centered (the reason I use twitter in the first place) I don't read other people's tweets, I just tweet my own and expect them to be read and cherished.
Same here. And I also have never seen any ads on youtube at all.
Maybe because I use youtube to look at videos that regular people have made about subjects I'm interested in, like musical instruments... and I upload similar videos, stuff my family might want to see, fellow hobbyists, whatever.
I suppose it's different if you're watching just the "top videos," then you might see ads... but when you think about it, even if you DON'T see ads when you watch the top videos, you're watching ads anyway because the top stuff today is all just crap to hype some artificial pop culture trend or some instant celebrity gossip bullshit. All of which is created for and exists to make someone money down the line somewhere anyway.
Regular people sharing videos - the thing YouTube was created for in the first place? It still works pretty damned well at that.
Especially if you consider your public your enemy.
Don't worry -for the next few years we'll be hearing that Julian's "#3 Lieutenant" has been killed or arrested - over and over and over.
Ever hear of the Pentagon Papers?
Classification is supposed to be used to protect the American people, not protect criminals in office, or protect certain classes' privileges, or protect certain corporations' contracts, or to DECEIVE the American public.
If you are privy to misuse of the law in such a way or of such abuses, it's the patriotic and moral thing to do to expose them.
We don't know (yet) what this information is, but breaking the law is sometimes justified if the law is unjust or is being used to protect uinjust actions.
The person taking such action, choosing to break a law they see as wrong faces the consequences knowingly. History will judge whether they were right or wrong.
And in general we should be uncomfortable with the idea of our government deciding that we don;t have a right to know what its doing - pretty much goes against the ideas behind the founding of this country and is abhorrent to anyone not having an authoritarian mindset.
Somehow I'm sure our country and citizens will manage to survive the release of this information that the government feels it must protect us from.
See, it was all a plan - give us a day of "Google as Bing" and demonstrate with cold hard data that people don't like Bing's style and prefer Google. Shut up carpers among stockholders that were screaming "do something!" to respond to Bing grabbing 2 percent market share, AND wipe MS's nose it it.
Yeah, that was the plan all along.
Those damned activist judges! Oh wait...
before you purchase this milk, I need to know - how do you plan to use it? Are you drinking it straight? Eating Count Chocula? Making Yogurt? A Flan perhaps?
The sale price will depend on your answer as some uses of milk are far more desirable than others.
While I agree with you, I would like to point out that back in the day cable TV networks didn't have ads. Because you were paying for them.
Disney? No ads. AMC? No ads. etc.
Now they all have ads. Why, because they just couldn't make a profit otherwise? Fuck no.
Because they realized that people are fucking stupid enough to pay for advertising.
But they aren't charging by the byte. They are charging a fixed rate that more than supports their business model, and then charging by the byte if you go over an amount that they have determined makes you somewhat less profitable of a customer than they would like.
AT&T is selling you a cake then having your cake and eating it too.
I think the "mixed reception" was a reference to how well these people were able to discuss the subject with each other over AT&Ts network.
I'm assuming your propane tank rolls over your unused propane to the next month...
Used to be you could use all ATMs free. Then Bank of America decided to charge $1.00 for non-network transactions. Made major news articles, people were outraged for a few minutes. Then Wells Fargo announced they were following suit. Soon EVERYONE charged $1.00 for out of network transactions.
After a bit, Bank of America accounced they were upping the charge from $1 to a higher amount. A minor blip in the news, then others announced they were following suit.
I found it very cool but it always crashes on me not very far in. (Windows 7 64 bit)
or the article it's sourced from, so I decided to do a little research on my own to see if this story is true. So I searched google news for the subject matter and what I found was... ... oh wait a second, just a minute someone's at the door.
Actually, here in Sweden, coordinated efforts from bloggers focused attention on a surveillance law our politicians tried to sneak through parlament without anyone noticing. In the end, the law was only delayed and slightly modified, but the newspapers started writing a lot more about the issue and people seem more aware of the problem now.
So you're saying that the effect of the coordinated efforts was that instead of the populace being unaware that they are fucked and there's nothing they can do about it, they're now AWARE that they're fucked and there's nothing they can do about it?
You're operating under the assumption that the intent of the "Patriot Act" actually had something to do with terrorism.
True but strange story - that song was originally from the soundtrack of a french porno film.
...backwards theocracies...
You have a redundancy there.
I'm sorry if you disagree with copyright law as it was originally written and intended, as that is all I was trying to make clear.