First off the CEO is only accountable to the board of directors. Not to tech workers. No IT labor?
Hmm. A cruise ship company constantly relies on the blanket protection of the US coastal guard and the US Navy. They want to move US jobs overseas and keep selling their products in the US (the tickets to their cruises is their products)? Well, according to Trump's plan that would mean they have to pay a 35% tariff. Those naval boats cost money, too, you know.
The difference between partnerships and unions is actually very murky. I don't know why IT workers don't elect to organize in partnerships (akin to lawyers, doctors and other professionals). Certainly, management works in a single-purpose fashion. So would partnerships providing IT services. It would still allow for non-partners to be employed by the partnerships if they are just getting their feet wet and are not yet certain to provide long-term benefit to the other partners. But why work for the management if it's clearly ran by people who have no understanding of your skills? Why not organize in units ran by individuals who actually know what your work entails and understand its ins and outs better than you would for the next 5 years and better than those who would benefit from your skills? The same goes for start ups. I don't get why people want "stock options" instead of partnerships or partnership-track positions. Shares in a company equity don't entitle anyone to much (really, just voting rights which when more than 50% of the company is retained by the founders). Is it to sell the shares to the "bigger fool"? Well, partnership agreements would ensure that company profits benefit you for as long as the partnership is profitable. There would be no need to hope that the "bigger fools" come along someday.
Sill haven't heard Trump's plan, have you? Any company which moves US jobs overseas will face a 35% tariff on all goods it tries to sell in the US which are manufactured outside of the US. For a cruise ship company, that would be all of their goods. Hope that bad rep plus the 35% increase in you ticket prices (which go into Uncle Sam's coffers and you never get to see) still justify your cost cuts.
Carnival gets protection of safe sea passage ensured by the security maintained by the US Navy. Its customers are largely US residents. Why shouldn't they be charged a tariff to recoup the costs of benefiting from the US protection? Why shouldn't the US citizens taking Carnival cruises pay an extra fee (in the form of a tariff) to benefit from the international protections which they receive due to the dominance of US Navy overseas?
Will Trump stop this? I doubt it. Get a job where you can't hand someone an instruction manual.
Actually, he very much can if he sticks to his proposed plan. Carnival (as all cruise ships) is most likely registered as a foreign corporation. If Trump sticks to his promise that exporting US jobs overseas will result in immediate 35% tariff on its products, that would mean an immediate 35% tariff on the sale of all tickets to Carnival cruise lines (because they are all foreign products). How long do you think they can stay competitive with a 35% tariff slapped on them? Do you think the savings in IT costs will justify the loss of business?
I am sorry that foreign tech workers are willing to do the same job you are, but at a lower salary.
This is not a lawful use of H1B visas. So working with a group of lawyers to ensure that H1B visas are not used in such a way is a completely appropriate behavior. This is no different than fighting age discrimination or race-based discrimination. There are simply some reasons which are not legally supported justifications for laying people off. Replacing them with lower paid H1B visa holders is one of those.
US providers give away cable boxes for free in some markets and charge full price in others. I think they can be rented instead of bought, too. Cable and VOIP *services* are also deeply discounted if they are bundled with an internet connection. Net neutrality generally means that you can't differentiate one type of upstream traffic from another (so you can't slow down 3rd party services and demand that they pay a fee to be as fast the ones which are already paying fees). But if something is much closer to the actual consumer box (network-topology wise), then it's not discriminatory pricing. Just as a hypothetical, what if there is an Internet-based TV recording service (it only allows recording a signal which actually reaches customer equipment first). Such a service would eat significantly more ISP's bandwidth than a local DVR which would come inside a cable box. Wouldn't an ISP be justified in charging nothing for the DVR and charging for the bandwidth used by an Internet-based DVR service? A local DVR would not use any bandwidth at all. I am saying that the situation with the music service is similar because it puts the music service much closer, in the network topology, to the customer equipment. So to deliver 1 MB of music from this cached service, a provider has to use much less of its own upstream bandwidth than it would have to use to provide 1 MB of Spotify music. It's just basic caching. Why can't the provider charge less for the service which it costs less to provide?
It doesn't seem like it's free. It's only free to subscribers (paid subscribers) of a data plan. Bundling free stuff with paid-for stuff is generally seen as adding features rather than giving stuff away. If they shot out Spotify, then it maybe that would make sense. Yes, I do get the point that they are "charging extra" for using Spotify because that data counts towards using the data plan, but it's actually using more upstream data. A service offered by a company can be reverse proxied and carry much lower delivery costs than the delivery of content from further upstream. The closest analogy I can think of is using local apps vs web apps. One wouldn't charge data fees for local apps which don't use data from a distant server.
I am sorry, but Russian Federation (not to be confused with "Russia") has lost all credibility after its invasion of Crimea. First, it was occupied by "volunteers" (Putin's own words). And then a "referendum" was held. So the world was asked to believe that a well-organized army units capable of providing logistics and having a well-organized chain of command was able to pull off a "fair election" (print ballots, inform the populus about pros and cons of voting for either side of the vote, verify that each voter was a legal resident registered to vote at the polling place where he voted) within a few weeks. And only then the "official" RF forces marched in and took over? It took RF 10 years to fight the rebels in Chechnya, but rag-tag volunteers organized an election, formed a legal structure to petition RF to take over, and kept the island from erupting in mayhem in 2-3 weeks? Right. We believe in "Ukrainian civil war" about as much as we believe in those "volunteers".
It doesn't matter how many agencies or individuals were vetting that decision. What matters is which agency was the principal one in giving the decision the legal go-ahead. State department makes those decisions about exporting arms to foreign nations. Other agencies could have been consulted, but the State Department had to make the call. So it's still on Hillary.
Well, as the other comment pointed out, Slashdot isn't a paper. But if you insist on treating it as such, consider my reply to my comment to be tantamount to a paper issuing a "correction" to what it previously printed. But, in general, yeah, papers only issued corrections because after they are printed, they couldn't fix what they printed while providing a clear history of edits. Many online forums do provide that functionality. Certainly one of the oldest tech-oriented forums should as well.
"Congress has no reason to take Snowden at his word."
How so? Snowden has shown himself to be more honest and ethical than the intelligence bureaucracy [washingtonpost.com] which is smearing him.
Because he was a contractor rather than a federal employee. A federal employee would have had swear an oath to protect and defend The Constitution of The United States. So there would be room to argue that this is what he did. As a contractor, he, without a doubt, had to sign an NDA. By making his revelations, he broke the terms of the NDA. And since Congress was paying his salary (which was pre-conditioned on his signing the NDA), he did willingly break the terms of a contract which he signed. So Congress has good reasons not to take him at his word.
purportedly phished. No connection has been shown between Snowden and the RF so far. And given that Podesta was throwing the primary to Hillary and using DNC resources to actively sabotage Sanders' candidacy, the idea that the info was leaked by a DNC insider is just as plausible.
Snowden has said unequivocally, many, many times -- despite mainstream media and politicians with an axe to grind repeatedly 'forgetting' to mention it -- that he left Hong Kong with NO storage devices containing copies of the data he provided to Greenwald et al.
In their defense, Congress has no reason to take Snowden at his word. But, more broadly, not having information on him is not the same thing as not having the information within one's reach. All it takes is an encrypted blob in some Dropbox(TM) account and the info is accessible to anyone in the world, but only readable to him personally. I am sure someone like him could concoct a more sophisticated and more finely granulated information retrieval scheme from anywhere in the world which would depend on a keyset generated from information known only to him.
Is he the same one who worked for the US intelligence and was forced to seek political asylum elsewhere after revealing that the US intelligence services may have overstepped their legal boundaries? The man who was bestowed the "privilege" of personally asking the President of the Russian Federation (not to be confused with "Russia") a question about mass surveillance on TV is in contact with RF's intelligence services? Shocking. Do they file Congressional reports with their breakfast menus, too?
And if it ever passed, how would they feel about the individuals who refused to participate in any projects providing technical backing to cap-n-trade? What about a national gun-owner registry which can be viewed by anyone? Gun ownership is a guaranteed constitutional right just as the right to practice a religion is a guaranteed constitutional right.. IBM is a private company. Refusing to participate in its projects does not make anyone a conscientious-objector employee. It makes them insubordinate employees. The conscientious thing to do in such a situation is not to object to participate in a project. It is to resign. Hoping to both refuse to participate in company's projects and to keep drawing salary from the company is slimy.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a San Francisco-created problem.
http://reason.com/archives/201...
I mean 8:1... damn slashdot no-edits idiocy.
It's the NIMBYs. The ratio of building permits to new jobs created (in San Francisco) is 1 to 8.
Link here:
http://reason.com/archives/2016/10/01/yes-in-my-backyard
The ratio of new jobs to new building permits is 8:1.
the last sentence of the summary
First off the CEO is only accountable to the board of directors. Not to tech workers. No IT labor?
Hmm. A cruise ship company constantly relies on the blanket protection of the US coastal guard and the US Navy. They want to move US jobs overseas and keep selling their products in the US (the tickets to their cruises is their products)? Well, according to Trump's plan that would mean they have to pay a 35% tariff. Those naval boats cost money, too, you know.
The difference between partnerships and unions is actually very murky. I don't know why IT workers don't elect to organize in partnerships (akin to lawyers, doctors and other professionals). Certainly, management works in a single-purpose fashion. So would partnerships providing IT services. It would still allow for non-partners to be employed by the partnerships if they are just getting their feet wet and are not yet certain to provide long-term benefit to the other partners. But why work for the management if it's clearly ran by people who have no understanding of your skills? Why not organize in units ran by individuals who actually know what your work entails and understand its ins and outs better than you would for the next 5 years and better than those who would benefit from your skills? The same goes for start ups. I don't get why people want "stock options" instead of partnerships or partnership-track positions. Shares in a company equity don't entitle anyone to much (really, just voting rights which when more than 50% of the company is retained by the founders). Is it to sell the shares to the "bigger fool"? Well, partnership agreements would ensure that company profits benefit you for as long as the partnership is profitable. There would be no need to hope that the "bigger fools" come along someday.
Sill haven't heard Trump's plan, have you? Any company which moves US jobs overseas will face a 35% tariff on all goods it tries to sell in the US which are manufactured outside of the US. For a cruise ship company, that would be all of their goods. Hope that bad rep plus the 35% increase in you ticket prices (which go into Uncle Sam's coffers and you never get to see) still justify your cost cuts.
Carnival gets protection of safe sea passage ensured by the security maintained by the US Navy. Its customers are largely US residents. Why shouldn't they be charged a tariff to recoup the costs of benefiting from the US protection? Why shouldn't the US citizens taking Carnival cruises pay an extra fee (in the form of a tariff) to benefit from the international protections which they receive due to the dominance of US Navy overseas?
Will Trump stop this? I doubt it. Get a job where you can't hand someone an instruction manual.
Actually, he very much can if he sticks to his proposed plan. Carnival (as all cruise ships) is most likely registered as a foreign corporation. If Trump sticks to his promise that exporting US jobs overseas will result in immediate 35% tariff on its products, that would mean an immediate 35% tariff on the sale of all tickets to Carnival cruise lines (because they are all foreign products). How long do you think they can stay competitive with a 35% tariff slapped on them? Do you think the savings in IT costs will justify the loss of business?
I am sorry that foreign tech workers are willing to do the same job you are, but at a lower salary.
This is not a lawful use of H1B visas. So working with a group of lawyers to ensure that H1B visas are not used in such a way is a completely appropriate behavior. This is no different than fighting age discrimination or race-based discrimination. There are simply some reasons which are not legally supported justifications for laying people off. Replacing them with lower paid H1B visa holders is one of those.
US providers give away cable boxes for free in some markets and charge full price in others. I think they can be rented instead of bought, too. Cable and VOIP *services* are also deeply discounted if they are bundled with an internet connection. Net neutrality generally means that you can't differentiate one type of upstream traffic from another (so you can't slow down 3rd party services and demand that they pay a fee to be as fast the ones which are already paying fees). But if something is much closer to the actual consumer box (network-topology wise), then it's not discriminatory pricing. Just as a hypothetical, what if there is an Internet-based TV recording service (it only allows recording a signal which actually reaches customer equipment first). Such a service would eat significantly more ISP's bandwidth than a local DVR which would come inside a cable box. Wouldn't an ISP be justified in charging nothing for the DVR and charging for the bandwidth used by an Internet-based DVR service? A local DVR would not use any bandwidth at all. I am saying that the situation with the music service is similar because it puts the music service much closer, in the network topology, to the customer equipment. So to deliver 1 MB of music from this cached service, a provider has to use much less of its own upstream bandwidth than it would have to use to provide 1 MB of Spotify music. It's just basic caching. Why can't the provider charge less for the service which it costs less to provide?
Increased stress hormone levels help to improve memory.
It doesn't seem like it's free. It's only free to subscribers (paid subscribers) of a data plan. Bundling free stuff with paid-for stuff is generally seen as adding features rather than giving stuff away. If they shot out Spotify, then it maybe that would make sense. Yes, I do get the point that they are "charging extra" for using Spotify because that data counts towards using the data plan, but it's actually using more upstream data. A service offered by a company can be reverse proxied and carry much lower delivery costs than the delivery of content from further upstream. The closest analogy I can think of is using local apps vs web apps. One wouldn't charge data fees for local apps which don't use data from a distant server.
You are such an obvious Ukrainian doing his job.
I am sorry, but Russian Federation (not to be confused with "Russia") has lost all credibility after its invasion of Crimea. First, it was occupied by "volunteers" (Putin's own words). And then a "referendum" was held. So the world was asked to believe that a well-organized army units capable of providing logistics and having a well-organized chain of command was able to pull off a "fair election" (print ballots, inform the populus about pros and cons of voting for either side of the vote, verify that each voter was a legal resident registered to vote at the polling place where he voted) within a few weeks. And only then the "official" RF forces marched in and took over? It took RF 10 years to fight the rebels in Chechnya, but rag-tag volunteers organized an election, formed a legal structure to petition RF to take over, and kept the island from erupting in mayhem in 2-3 weeks? Right. We believe in "Ukrainian civil war" about as much as we believe in those "volunteers".
It doesn't matter how many agencies or individuals were vetting that decision. What matters is which agency was the principal one in giving the decision the legal go-ahead. State department makes those decisions about exporting arms to foreign nations. Other agencies could have been consulted, but the State Department had to make the call. So it's still on Hillary.
Well, as the other comment pointed out, Slashdot isn't a paper. But if you insist on treating it as such, consider my reply to my comment to be tantamount to a paper issuing a "correction" to what it previously printed. But, in general, yeah, papers only issued corrections because after they are printed, they couldn't fix what they printed while providing a clear history of edits. Many online forums do provide that functionality. Certainly one of the oldest tech-oriented forums should as well.
"Congress has no reason to take Snowden at his word."
How so? Snowden has shown himself to be more honest and ethical than the intelligence bureaucracy [washingtonpost.com] which is smearing him.
Because he was a contractor rather than a federal employee. A federal employee would have had swear an oath to protect and defend The Constitution of The United States. So there would be room to argue that this is what he did. As a contractor, he, without a doubt, had to sign an NDA. By making his revelations, he broke the terms of the NDA. And since Congress was paying his salary (which was pre-conditioned on his signing the NDA), he did willingly break the terms of a contract which he signed. So Congress has good reasons not to take him at his word.
I meant between Wikileaks and RF, but Slashdot won't let you edit your comments.
That's Children's News Network. Clinton's news network was sold and rebranded as Al Jazeera America.
Well, Wikileaks is controlled by Russia, and is used primarily as a Russian propaganda tool.
Citation needed.
and those phished from Podesta's gmail account?
purportedly phished. No connection has been shown between Snowden and the RF so far. And given that Podesta was throwing the primary to Hillary and using DNC resources to actively sabotage Sanders' candidacy, the idea that the info was leaked by a DNC insider is just as plausible.
Snowden has said unequivocally, many, many times -- despite mainstream media and politicians with an axe to grind repeatedly 'forgetting' to mention it -- that he left Hong Kong with NO storage devices containing copies of the data he provided to Greenwald et al.
In their defense, Congress has no reason to take Snowden at his word. But, more broadly, not having information on him is not the same thing as not having the information within one's reach. All it takes is an encrypted blob in some Dropbox(TM) account and the info is accessible to anyone in the world, but only readable to him personally. I am sure someone like him could concoct a more sophisticated and more finely granulated information retrieval scheme from anywhere in the world which would depend on a keyset generated from information known only to him.
Is he the same one who worked for the US intelligence and was forced to seek political asylum elsewhere after revealing that the US intelligence services may have overstepped their legal boundaries? The man who was bestowed the "privilege" of personally asking the President of the Russian Federation (not to be confused with "Russia") a question about mass surveillance on TV is in contact with RF's intelligence services? Shocking. Do they file Congressional reports with their breakfast menus, too?
And if it ever passed, how would they feel about the individuals who refused to participate in any projects providing technical backing to cap-n-trade? What about a national gun-owner registry which can be viewed by anyone? Gun ownership is a guaranteed constitutional right just as the right to practice a religion is a guaranteed constitutional right.. IBM is a private company. Refusing to participate in its projects does not make anyone a conscientious-objector employee. It makes them insubordinate employees. The conscientious thing to do in such a situation is not to object to participate in a project. It is to resign. Hoping to both refuse to participate in company's projects and to keep drawing salary from the company is slimy.