And you doesn't even want to address my questions either.
The fact that I am still here indicate that I am willing to debate you to the fullest. But a basic and updated knowledge on how the dark side of the union world works is needed, which you don't have any. The fact that you don't know anything about the NALC deal shows that you are an outsider. An outsider who think that the unions are a forces of good.
I don't say GM doesn't use automation at all, but GM doesn't use it to the fullest. It is just GM doesn't use it at the rate the likes of Toyota does. If GM goes full bore the way Toyota does, GM will be able to shed about 1/3 of its workers (a number valid in pre-bankruptcy era).
The likes of Toyota get past GM because their operating costs are lower (not having to contribute silly money to retirement funds and pay salaries to non-productive workers helps immensely) and has higher efficiency. Design isn't exactly vastly better than GM cars though, but they are more innovative (ask yourself how on earth GM doesn't have an answer to Prius for far too long).
The fact that you have to ask about the details of NALC-USPS union deal means that you are not in the loop. Sorry, but you asking about the deal if like a Mac user asking on how to do rsync in CentOS. The fact you have to ask shows your naivety. You doesn't know the industry, yet have the ball to say that unions doesn't contribute in causing a company to go bankrupt.
And all you do is calling me a troll, what a laugh.
Note: That deal is so groundbreaking in its stupidity considering the , I don't even have anything to say. USPS is definitely going to become bankrupt unless Congress intervened. And after doing that in 2006,do you think Congress will do it again?
I don't even listen to conservative talk radio (hint: I am not living is US right now), and all you can do is call me a troll (BTW, I am here earlier than you)? You doesn't want to answer why the unions are paid first during GM bankruptcy proceeding instead of the creditors/bondholders? You want to bury your head in the sand as USPS unions tried to destroy it even during this time when Congress is the only thing that keeps it alive?
If you think GM unions doesn't play a part at making it go bankrupt, power to you. When GM goers bankrupt again, I hope Congress will not bail them out again. GM unions are weaker nowadays than during the past? What USA do you live in?
GM unions retirement funds, bonuses, payment during the bankruptcy proceedings, inability to accept downsizing because of automation et al. the greediness of GM unions are legendary. Only the public school teacher unions are worse.
The people who works at Toyota's plants in United States are not unionized, plus their workflow is heavily automated, and their parts for CKD units (at least) comes from overseas, like China (the unions there are basically toothless - it is as if they doesn't have any - Chinese government heavily regulates them as if they are Falun Gong). Oh BTW, that's the reason why China's manufacturing base is bigger than Germany. Japan's unions are saner and, most of the time, will not stab the hands that feed them (protests are really rare, unless a scandal erupts).
UK may have high union membership, and their unions used to be powerful, but then comes this lady called Margaret T., who has done something no other leader in the civilized world has done, and told the unions where to shove it when the unions started their blackmail protests. She truly deserved her moniker, single-handedly cutting down the power of the unions in Britain. Foreign manufacturers mostly wants to come to Britain because of their highly-skilled NON-UNIONIZED workforce (any unions left there has less power post-Margaret), and Rovers failed mainly because they cannot keep their costs down.
Don't tell me you don't remember who Iron Lady is, one of the most divisive politicians in UK, even more than Barack Obama himself.
The main problems with GM unions is that they doesn't allow automation by robots to replace human resources, which will then increase efficiency, just like what Toyota has done.
Even after the post-bankruptcy, the unions will not let robots replace them. Unions caused a large part of the problems here by not accepting that a big chunk of the workflow can be automated, amongst others like crazy retirement funds, preventing firings et. al.
Of course mismanagement plays a part too, but not as large as what the unions has done. Why is that the unions doesn't allow the top management to use automation a a replacement for manual labor?
The fact you have to ask about what happened with USPS unions shows you doesn't know the industry. Hint: Just last year, a USPS union just managed to get better perks in retirement funds and bonuses at a time when USPS itself was kept afloat is kept solvent merely by the decree of Congress (I predict than in 2 or 3 years, a bailout will be needed by USPS, and I hope Congress will not approve one).
Yet, USPS unions has nothing to compare to the greediness of GM unions. Why is that, when GM files for bankrupcy, the unions will get paid first than the bondholders? Why is that? I'm pretty damn sure you will not be able to answer that.
When GM was successful, their unions aren't as greedy as they were today. Do you really think the unions during GM's heyday is the same as the one you see today? The answer is no, and if you claim to the contrary, then you really doesn't know history. GM unions are one of the greediest in USA, no doubt about that. Even USPS unions doesn't hold a candle to GM unions when it comes to selfishness.
Oh BTW, did I say GM going bankrupt solely because of the unions? I think I don't say that. The unions plays a SIGNIFICANT role contributing to the bankruptcy, that's for sure. Oh, BTW, it wasn't me who say 'Today's unions have been known to bankrupt companies once they get on site' post.
And there is really no need to look past this year where the Democrats congressional members pressured the Obama administration so hard over the Israel-Palestinian peace process in favor of the former just to show how Netanyahu has the Democrats on their balls. And that's only one instance of Democrats stupidity of pandering to the interests of a foreign power.
Should I really list the moronic things that the Democrats and Republicans, exclusively, has done in the past. Do you really think one party is more evil than the other? Are you really that naive?
So if I were to submit corrupt and stupid things done by politicians by both parties, you don't want to accept it? Then there is no reason for us to have any reasonable discussion then.
Both parties are totally corrupt and evil, and there are no redeeming qualities at all from them. There are no difference at all between them. If I were you, I will vote for a third-party candidate, or do not vote at all if none of the candidates and parties deserved my vote. No need to come up with silly formulas to determine which party is less evil than the other. But I think the concept of exercising your voting right is beyond your comprehension.
It is also not useful for you to ignore the simple fact that politicans from both parties are corrupt in different ways. Just because politicians from party R is corrupt for doing thing Y while politicians from party D is corrupt for doing thing X doesn't mean that party R/D is more corrupt than party D/R.
Both parties are similarly corrupt, and that's a fact. Saying that one party is less evil than the other one is pretty much stupid on your part. It is really easy to point out crazy things that politicians from each party does. Very easy.
Ignoring that OpenSUSE is GPLv2 and has the source code in the physical discs, it doesn't mean that Amazon cannot just absolve their responsibility of providing source code of any GPL software they sell (if the source code itself wasn't provided in the package).
Oh BTW, the GPL cannot be supplanted by additional agreements/contracts et. al. That would be another violation of the GPL license. See the case of GPL software in Apple App Store. The EULA cannot be paired with the GPL license, that's why Apple banned GPL software from the app store of theirs.
Since when GPL has become a usage license? Since when the GPL makes you accept the license when you only make derivative or copying or use or modify a GPL-licensed software? Is there any GPLv4 being wheeled out and the world doesn't know about it?
No, GPL only kicks in when you DISTRIBUTE an original/derivative GP{L-licensed software.
If you only make software but don't distribute it, GPL doesn't apply.
If you only use a GPL-licensed software, but do not re-distribute it, then the GPL doesn't apply.
If you modify a GPL-licensed software for your own purposes, but do not re-distribute the modified software, then the GPL doesn't apply.
But if you distribute a GPL-licensed software, modified or not, made by you or not, GPL SUDDENLY KICKS IN YO! Better have the source code packaged within the setup file/physical media or made available by you (and not by the manufacturer) online.
BTW, I did not misunderstand the word 'distro' and 'distributor'.
Correct. But if asked, the distributor must also provide the source code, either via Internet download or via physical media, whatever is appropriate.
This means, if you want to distribute GPL-licensed software, always include the source code with it. A certain prominent North America Linux distributor (in the word of CentOS) used to not do this...
If the package contains the source code already, then there is no problem. Red Hat Linux used to be sold at retailers, but without the accompanying source code, but that isn't the case already nowadays.
No, the GPL kicks in only when a party who received the software in question from someone else, redistribute it.
GPL doesn't kick in if Amazon modify a GPL software, and then keeps it to itself. If you modify a GPL software, but doesn't distribute the said software, Amazon doesn't have to comply to the GPL license.
But if Amazon redistributes a GPLed software, whether for free or paid, GPL will kick in even if Amazon doesn't alter a single line of source code of the said software.
Remember, GPL applies only about the distribution of the said software, not the usage of it. You don't have to accept the GPL license if you want to use or modify a GPLed software. But you do have to accept it if you DISTRIBUTE it. Even without modifications.
Amazon sells a GPL software, therefore they are a distributor. Show me a clause in GPLv2/v3 that allows anyone who distribute GPL software to not make the source code available too.
To sell a GPL software is not a violation, as long as the source code is made available too BY THE DISTRIBUTOR. As a distributor, you cannot simply tell people who buys a GPL software to go to the manufacturer for the source code (if it wasn't included with the software itself). The distributor itself must made the source code available, at their own expense.
Then Amazon is violating the GPL. If Amazon doesn't provide the source code, they will be in hot water for copyright infringement. Can you link the said software here?
You have no ability to see reality. If Google makes YouTube WebM -only, not only non-Android smartphones cannot watch YouTube videos, but also other browsers like IE or Safari, or media streamers like Boxee Box and WD TV HD, or consoles like PS3 or Xbox 360. Threatening to do so will only results for a disaster for Google.
Apple will never support WebM, just like they will never support Flash (which has even more widespread usage in the Internet RIGHT NOW). Do you think Google is that stupid to ignore significant chunks of the market? Do you really think Google can shame Apple into supporting WebM? Don't really think so.
iOS by itself won't beat Android, but iOS + WP7 + WebOS + Blackberry + featurephones will beat it to pulp. If Google breaks YouTube and makes a threat that only Android can play videos on smartphones after some point in the future, it is going to be disastrous PR for Google. Maybe even an antitrust lawsuit will come their way too.
I am not really sure that Android will be as dominant as Windows in the smartphone industry. I'll be surprised if it ever reach 50% marketshare. iOS is not the only competitor, but also WebOS and WP7.
If Google put a deadline where, in 2015, YouTube will be WebM-only, do you think that Apple will make sure than the iPhone 10 or whatever will support WebM? I don't think so.
Highly likely, Apple will instead make their own video-streaming service (they already have iTunes) or switch to other video-streaming services that supports H.264. Then, Steve will use the RDF to distorts reality and put all the blame on Google for stopping to support H.264 in YouTube. And the iDrones and the mainstream media like NYT et. al. will swallow whatever he says and Google will have a PR disaster in their hands. That n00b CEO Larry Page is no match for the guile of Steve.
Slashdot Mirror
And you doesn't even want to address my questions either.
The fact that I am still here indicate that I am willing to debate you to the fullest. But a basic and updated knowledge on how the dark side of the union world works is needed, which you don't have any. The fact that you don't know anything about the NALC deal shows that you are an outsider. An outsider who think that the unions are a forces of good.
An outsider calling me a troll? What a laugh.
I don't say GM doesn't use automation at all, but GM doesn't use it to the fullest. It is just GM doesn't use it at the rate the likes of Toyota does. If GM goes full bore the way Toyota does, GM will be able to shed about 1/3 of its workers (a number valid in pre-bankruptcy era).
The likes of Toyota get past GM because their operating costs are lower (not having to contribute silly money to retirement funds and pay salaries to non-productive workers helps immensely) and has higher efficiency. Design isn't exactly vastly better than GM cars though, but they are more innovative (ask yourself how on earth GM doesn't have an answer to Prius for far too long).
The fact that you have to ask about the details of NALC-USPS union deal means that you are not in the loop. Sorry, but you asking about the deal if like a Mac user asking on how to do rsync in CentOS. The fact you have to ask shows your naivety. You doesn't know the industry, yet have the ball to say that unions doesn't contribute in causing a company to go bankrupt.
And all you do is calling me a troll, what a laugh.
Note: That deal is so groundbreaking in its stupidity considering the , I don't even have anything to say. USPS is definitely going to become bankrupt unless Congress intervened. And after doing that in 2006,do you think Congress will do it again?
I don't even listen to conservative talk radio (hint: I am not living is US right now), and all you can do is call me a troll (BTW, I am here earlier than you)? You doesn't want to answer why the unions are paid first during GM bankruptcy proceeding instead of the creditors/bondholders? You want to bury your head in the sand as USPS unions tried to destroy it even during this time when Congress is the only thing that keeps it alive?
If you think GM unions doesn't play a part at making it go bankrupt, power to you. When GM goers bankrupt again, I hope Congress will not bail them out again. GM unions are weaker nowadays than during the past? What USA do you live in?
GM unions retirement funds, bonuses, payment during the bankruptcy proceedings, inability to accept downsizing because of automation et al. the greediness of GM unions are legendary. Only the public school teacher unions are worse.
The people who works at Toyota's plants in United States are not unionized, plus their workflow is heavily automated, and their parts for CKD units (at least) comes from overseas, like China (the unions there are basically toothless - it is as if they doesn't have any - Chinese government heavily regulates them as if they are Falun Gong). Oh BTW, that's the reason why China's manufacturing base is bigger than Germany. Japan's unions are saner and, most of the time, will not stab the hands that feed them (protests are really rare, unless a scandal erupts).
UK may have high union membership, and their unions used to be powerful, but then comes this lady called Margaret T., who has done something no other leader in the civilized world has done, and told the unions where to shove it when the unions started their blackmail protests. She truly deserved her moniker, single-handedly cutting down the power of the unions in Britain. Foreign manufacturers mostly wants to come to Britain because of their highly-skilled NON-UNIONIZED workforce (any unions left there has less power post-Margaret), and Rovers failed mainly because they cannot keep their costs down.
Don't tell me you don't remember who Iron Lady is, one of the most divisive politicians in UK, even more than Barack Obama himself.
The main problems with GM unions is that they doesn't allow automation by robots to replace human resources, which will then increase efficiency, just like what Toyota has done.
Even after the post-bankruptcy, the unions will not let robots replace them. Unions caused a large part of the problems here by not accepting that a big chunk of the workflow can be automated, amongst others like crazy retirement funds, preventing firings et. al.
Of course mismanagement plays a part too, but not as large as what the unions has done. Why is that the unions doesn't allow the top management to use automation a a replacement for manual labor?
The fact you have to ask about what happened with USPS unions shows you doesn't know the industry. Hint: Just last year, a USPS union just managed to get better perks in retirement funds and bonuses at a time when USPS itself was kept afloat is kept solvent merely by the decree of Congress (I predict than in 2 or 3 years, a bailout will be needed by USPS, and I hope Congress will not approve one).
Yet, USPS unions has nothing to compare to the greediness of GM unions. Why is that, when GM files for bankrupcy, the unions will get paid first than the bondholders? Why is that? I'm pretty damn sure you will not be able to answer that.
When GM was successful, their unions aren't as greedy as they were today. Do you really think the unions during GM's heyday is the same as the one you see today? The answer is no, and if you claim to the contrary, then you really doesn't know history. GM unions are one of the greediest in USA, no doubt about that. Even USPS unions doesn't hold a candle to GM unions when it comes to selfishness.
Oh BTW, did I say GM going bankrupt solely because of the unions? I think I don't say that. The unions plays a SIGNIFICANT role contributing to the bankruptcy, that's for sure. Oh, BTW, it wasn't me who say 'Today's unions have been known to bankrupt companies once they get on site' post.
General Motors? If you think their unions doesn't have any part whatsoever in causing it to go bankrupt then I don't have anything to say.
And there is really no need to look past this year where the Democrats congressional members pressured the Obama administration so hard over the Israel-Palestinian peace process in favor of the former just to show how Netanyahu has the Democrats on their balls. And that's only one instance of Democrats stupidity of pandering to the interests of a foreign power.
Should I really list the moronic things that the Democrats and Republicans, exclusively, has done in the past. Do you really think one party is more evil than the other? Are you really that naive?
So if I were to submit corrupt and stupid things done by politicians by both parties, you don't want to accept it? Then there is no reason for us to have any reasonable discussion then.
Both parties are totally corrupt and evil, and there are no redeeming qualities at all from them. There are no difference at all between them. If I were you, I will vote for a third-party candidate, or do not vote at all if none of the candidates and parties deserved my vote. No need to come up with silly formulas to determine which party is less evil than the other. But I think the concept of exercising your voting right is beyond your comprehension.
It is also not useful for you to ignore the simple fact that politicans from both parties are corrupt in different ways. Just because politicians from party R is corrupt for doing thing Y while politicians from party D is corrupt for doing thing X doesn't mean that party R/D is more corrupt than party D/R.
Both parties are similarly corrupt, and that's a fact. Saying that one party is less evil than the other one is pretty much stupid on your part. It is really easy to point out crazy things that politicians from each party does. Very easy.
If Obama could ignore Congress...
He would become a dictator. Simple as that.
Politically, our biggest problem is that we have a two-party system, where both parties are totally evil and corrupt.
FTFY.
Ignoring that OpenSUSE is GPLv2 and has the source code in the physical discs, it doesn't mean that Amazon cannot just absolve their responsibility of providing source code of any GPL software they sell (if the source code itself wasn't provided in the package).
Oh BTW, the GPL cannot be supplanted by additional agreements/contracts et. al.
That would be another violation of the GPL license. See the case of GPL software in Apple App Store. The EULA cannot be paired with the GPL license, that's why Apple banned GPL software from the app store of theirs.
Since when GPL has become a usage license? Since when the GPL makes you accept the license when you only make derivative or copying or use or modify a GPL-licensed software? Is there any GPLv4 being wheeled out and the world doesn't know about it?
No, GPL only kicks in when you DISTRIBUTE an original/derivative GP{L-licensed software.
If you only make software but don't distribute it, GPL doesn't apply.
If you only use a GPL-licensed software, but do not re-distribute it, then the GPL doesn't apply.
If you modify a GPL-licensed software for your own purposes, but do not re-distribute the modified software, then the GPL doesn't apply.
But if you distribute a GPL-licensed software, modified or not, made by you or not, GPL SUDDENLY KICKS IN YO! Better have the source code packaged within the setup file/physical media or made available by you (and not by the manufacturer) online.
BTW, I did not misunderstand the word 'distro' and 'distributor'.
Correct. But if asked, the distributor must also provide the source code, either via Internet download or via physical media, whatever is appropriate.
This means, if you want to distribute GPL-licensed software, always include the source code with it. A certain prominent North America Linux distributor (in the word of CentOS) used to not do this...
If the package contains the source code already, then there is no problem. Red Hat Linux used to be sold at retailers, but without the accompanying source code, but that isn't the case already nowadays.
No, the GPL kicks in only when a party who received the software in question from someone else, redistribute it.
GPL doesn't kick in if Amazon modify a GPL software, and then keeps it to itself. If you modify a GPL software, but doesn't distribute the said software, Amazon doesn't have to comply to the GPL license.
But if Amazon redistributes a GPLed software, whether for free or paid, GPL will kick in even if Amazon doesn't alter a single line of source code of the said software.
Remember, GPL applies only about the distribution of the said software, not the usage of it. You don't have to accept the GPL license if you want to use or modify a GPLed software. But you do have to accept it if you DISTRIBUTE it. Even without modifications.
Amazon sells a GPL software, therefore they are a distributor. Show me a clause in GPLv2/v3 that allows anyone who distribute GPL software to not make the source code available too.
To sell a GPL software is not a violation, as long as the source code is made available too BY THE DISTRIBUTOR. As a distributor, you cannot simply tell people who buys a GPL software to go to the manufacturer for the source code (if it wasn't included with the software itself). The distributor itself must made the source code available, at their own expense.
Then Amazon is violating the GPL. If Amazon doesn't provide the source code, they will be in hot water for copyright infringement. Can you link the said software here?
You have no ability to see reality. If Google makes YouTube WebM -only, not only non-Android smartphones cannot watch YouTube videos, but also other browsers like IE or Safari, or media streamers like Boxee Box and WD TV HD, or consoles like PS3 or Xbox 360. Threatening to do so will only results for a disaster for Google.
Apple will never support WebM, just like they will never support Flash (which has even more widespread usage in the Internet RIGHT NOW). Do you think Google is that stupid to ignore significant chunks of the market? Do you really think Google can shame Apple into supporting WebM? Don't really think so.
iOS by itself won't beat Android, but iOS + WP7 + WebOS + Blackberry + featurephones will beat it to pulp. If Google breaks YouTube and makes a threat that only Android can play videos on smartphones after some point in the future, it is going to be disastrous PR for Google. Maybe even an antitrust lawsuit will come their way too.
I am not really sure that Android will be as dominant as Windows in the smartphone industry. I'll be surprised if it ever reach 50% marketshare. iOS is not the only competitor, but also WebOS and WP7.
If Google put a deadline where, in 2015, YouTube will be WebM-only, do you think that Apple will make sure than the iPhone 10 or whatever will support WebM? I don't think so.
Highly likely, Apple will instead make their own video-streaming service (they already have iTunes) or switch to other video-streaming services that supports H.264. Then, Steve will use the RDF to distorts reality and put all the blame on Google for stopping to support H.264 in YouTube. And the iDrones and the mainstream media like NYT et. al. will swallow whatever he says and Google will have a PR disaster in their hands. That n00b CEO Larry Page is no match for the guile of Steve.