1) Everything is exactly as Bloomberg states and the Chinese have performed a supply line hack on American industry. - The strong denials from all public sources that might confirm this, including to the public and stockholders, would seem to indicates that a serious investigation is going on and the government is ordering everybody to deny hard if not out lie to preserve it. However, why keep it secret it the cat's out of the bag? China, and anybody involved, would already know and be taking steps to cover their tracks. Seems the proper response by law enforcement to break the news and step up public investigation ASAP.
2) Bloomberg's editors and writers are just misinterpreting whatever happened to Apple that they say was a compromised driver caught in the lab coming from a variety of sources who don't really have that good of info. - Bad stain on Bloomberg's reputation and failure of their editors to preserve the brand. Will no doubt hurt their operation when things come to light as their business is acting as a reliable source of business news.
3) The authors of the article are fabricating the article either from a collection of unrelated sources, or whole of cloth and selling it to Bloomberg, perhaps not expecting the attention it's getting. - A worse stain on Bloomberg as their editors still fell for it, but pretty much ruin for the author's careers as journalists in the future.
4) Bloomberg and the authors are in cahoots to create a fictitious story that can't be confirmed or denied in order to manipulate the markets, push international policy, and/or create fear of China. - This might actually spell doom for Bloomberg, or might not. There are plenty of "news sources" that could get away with such things and nobody would even blink if it was proved to be true. Perhaps Bloomberg thinks they can get sales and get away with it at the same time. I'm sure some people have played harder and faster with more on the line and the end result would depend on how trustworthy the public actually takes Bloomberg to be to begin with. It would also probably be straying into legal territory it it turned out toe be manufactured, cause the people involved to lose their jobs, and maybe do jail time.
4)Somebody has manufactured the story and fed it to Bloomberg's authors in order to manipulate the markets, push international policy, create fear of China, hurt Bloomberg's reputation, or any combination of these. - Now we're practically back into spook territory. There are certainly people who would like to do any number of things, but to have the scale to do beyond simply option #2 would take resources and also probably venture into legal territory for acting against Bloomberg, the companies involved, China, etc.
Moving government data onto servers that they have no control over sounds like an absolutely god-awful idea. Why would any company want to move to "cloud"-based storage? Are they forgetting that "the cloud" is just some guy's computer?
Companies only really care about the bottom line and the SLA. If a cloud company offers it for cheaper and has the terms and SLA that the company expects they can get with their own people (or better), then they'll take it. IME, Google probably backed out because they won't meet the government's terms for security and control. Google typically won't even discuss HIPAA terms in contracts. Along with the latest Google+ breach, they probably just aren't up to doing the security that the government is requiring int heir contracts.
Frankly, I think 90% of NASA's sense of deorbiting-urgency is precisely BECAUSE they'd rather see things like the ISS and Hubble get intentionally destroyed than risk allowing someone else to metaphorically grab them from the curb before the garbage truck arrives.
I think you're wrong. It's because they could build and send in replacements, multiple in the case of Hubble, quicker and cheaper than doing manned missions to refurbish the old stuff in orbit. Anybody who could go up there and grab them, would be able to put a newer better one up instead for less money.
Car analogy: It's like the old truck. It was a good truck, and when it runs, it still does its base job. However, it's old and repairs and maintenance are getting more and more frequent and more costly. So much that you could buy a new truck with better carrying and towing capacity (and new seats and stereo) along with better gas milage for what you would have to put into the old truck to keep it running in the time a new truck would still be under warranty.
For some reason, people who don't live in Mexico or Canada seem to think Mexicans and Canadians get upset when people living in the USA get called "Americans."
We don't.
Possibly true. However, it doesn't hurt to keep them in mind and there are some people who do care. Columbians mostly in my experience and they appreciate the effort when I catch and correct myself before they can do so./p.
If you had any google account they created a blank Google + account for you. Rather than leave mine blank I went ahead and filled it with all sorts of fake information and then never returned. I think on mine I went to Harvard, competitively wrestle bears for a living, and live in Turkmenistan. Or something like that- and have some obviously fake name.
I never miss an opportunity to provide fake data as noise to any company that tries to get information on me.
I do something similar with important info for sites that don't really need it. I'm just waiting for the day I get denied something by a 3rd party because my real info doesn't match up with my fake info.
NASA has chosen the BE-4. Too bad it uses single turbo thus requiring an interseal.
ULA has chosen the BE-4 because Rocketdyne refuses to put in any of their own money on their own engine, which pretty much says they'll never even have a working prototype. Even the ULA is probably expecting more money to make the Vulcan a reality and might not put in any of their own money, probably dooming it to vaporware. This leaves SpaceX and Blue Origin as serious choices. However, since the Senate gets to decide how NASA spends money, we can't discount the SLS yet.
I don't know why in simple hell the Mars batshit crazy fanbois didn't choose the Moon as a beta site in the first goddam place.
Because most of the "Mars batshit crazy fanbois" how far we actually are from being able to go to Mars and how much work is still needed to make that journey. I've looked at thing and asked people in lectures and giving interviews on the topic how long would it take to get to Mars with a manned mission once given Apollo level political buy in and budget, and the answer is 20-30 years. That time almost certainly involves testing many technologies in a moon fly by if not landing. Even Musk has said that a manned mars mission will cost 200-600 Billion, with his bets on closer to 600 Billion. That means you'd have to more than double the NASA budget and tell them to use the increase only on getting to Mars, and we'd get there in 30 years.
Because who doesn't like a pseudoscience theory that can quantify the compression ratio of angels dancing on the head of a tulip as it accelerates towards light speed?
By contrast, dark matter looks at the same problem--centrifugal forces should overcome the gravity of galaxies and hurl their stars out into space, but don't--and suggests that there's a magical, undiscovered form of matter which we can't measure, accounting for 85% of all mass and 25% of all energy in the universe. This creates new gravity (which we can't quite measure, apparently) so the universe doesn't break apart. We can't see it, we can't find it, we can't interact with it, but it's there because things happen that shouldn't happen.
Your knowledge seems a few decades out of date. It's not just galactic rotation, but also observed gravitational lensing around galaxies, observable effects in the cosmic background radiation from the early universe, etc that contribute and are all explained by dark matter. We can measure and find it pretty easily through gravitational lensing. We can interact with it through gravity, but gravity is a very weak force and our current level of detection does not allow for detection below very large scales currently. We have even detected when it has been dislocated from the main body of a galaxy or even removed completely from galactic collisions. Those are going to be the really hard examples of observational data that any other theory such as this one will have to explain, and if it doesn't, then there will have to be several other similarly large discoveries in other fields that will have to be made to go along with it to explain what we are currently observing.
this also needs to explain observed gravitational lensing (and lack of it in certain cases), observed cosmic background radiation, and several other directions that have come to point to dark matter.
No it has not.
Why should it?
It has nothing to do with it...
What is next? It should predict global warming? Nuclear decay?
Which part of quantified inertia did yo not get? What has inertia to do with cosmic background radiation? Hae? Or gravity lensing?
What does inertia have to do with that is exactly the question. Currently, the working theory of dark matter explains the experimental observations for all of these other things also. If a new theory of inertia explains one of them but not the others also, now there is a whole lot of other answers that need to be found for things that should be related.
Car analogy: We have car that turns over but won't start. It will run briefly with starter fluid applied. The gas gauge reads zero. If we open the gas tank, we smell no gas fumes. However, due to the construction of the fuel intake, we cannot put a hose or dipstick down into the tank to directly measure the level of gasoline. Current theory is that the car is out of gas. Somebody comes up with the idea that the construction of the fuel intake also is preventing us from smelling fumes from the gas. Very fine and well, but explanations for why the car won't start and why the gas gauge reads empty still must be found if it is the case there is gas in the tank but we just can't smell it.
So, like if the car does have gas, but we can't smell it which means there is some other problem with the gas feed as well as a broken gas gauge. Likewise, if this theory of inertia explains galactic rotation but not the others, then we have to come up with explanations for them also which will probably mean that not just dark matter turn out to be wrong, but also several other fields of astronomy and physics also.
Yeah. Relativity would've been a fringe theory to anyone who believed in classic Newtonian physics at the turn of the 20th century. Relativity was given consideration because it provided an explanation for some of the observed weirdness which Newtonian physics didn't (Michelson-Morley, orbit of Mercury). If this was just some guy advocating a theory out of the blue, then I'd be suspect of DARPA funding him. But if his theory can explain galactic rotation without using dark matter, then I think it's definitely worth investigating.
Sure. Let's investigate it. However, don't get any hopes up. Besides galactic rotation, this also needs to explain observed gravitational lensing (and lack of it in certain cases), observed cosmic background radiation, and several other directions that have come to point to dark matter. 70 years ago, this would have been a really intriguing experiment, and it was since this is just a modified MOND theory. However, now it's up against 70 years of testing and experiments which it will have to explain. End result, even if it does exist as the reason, it will still be best shown as a mathematical method that will treat it as a halo of matter that only interacts by gravity with other nearby matter and light.
The SLS and the cis-Lunar station proposed will be useless for going to Mars. The most efficient method is going direct from Earth orbit to Mars.
I disagree. I won't argue for the SLS except to say that NASA does what they are told with the money they are given that is already earmarked for those goals. However, a Lunar station is an important part of the mission to Mars. There is a lot about deep space habitats we don't know. There is a lot of engineering that needs to be applied and have the bugs worked out. There is a lot of research that needs to be done about humans in deep space for long periods with regards to radiation, gravity, sustainability, etc. There's more needed for applications such as using sufficient propulsion on a structure as would be needed to go to Mars. Apollo 1 didn't land people on the Moon. Mercury was needed before that. There is still plenty of work needed before we can go to Mars.
When you're being paid minimum wage in a 3-4% unemployment environment, who gives a fuck. If they screw with you, go somewhere that they don't.
Well, it's not always a 3-4% unemployment environment. Still, why should the workers be punished by having to find a new job? They might like their job, the commute might be ideal, it very well might not be minimum wage; in a small town, there might not be someplace else to go. Better to unionize and tell the manager that he can go find someplace else to work at.
Most unionizations efforts fail, not because of illegal company actions, but because the employees don't see the union as a benefit, often with good reason. They get a union deduction from every paycheck, and end up with a more confrontational working environment, less opportunity for individual advancement, and get to see their job outsourced to Mexico (or at least to South Carolina).
Doesn't really match my experience. The main reason that the employees give backing to the union is due to bad management and the union does provide for an agreed upon set of rules that makes for a less confrontational working environment, and opportunity for individual advancement. If the job is moving to Mexico, it was going there anyway and the union is the excuse, not the cause.
You're spot on regarding UAW. I grew up in Detroit, and saw it first hand with many family and friends...it was mostly mob run. Additionally, the grocery store union that my mom had to join (and was eventually a steward for) was pretty useless as well. They did virtually nothing for the dues that the clerks were required to pay from what was already essentially minimum wage.
I said the same thing when I worked for a grocery store and had a union. Then go to work for a non-union place and see how that can turn out: have your schedule changed with no notice, be told to skip or cut short breaks, charged to do jobs that higher paid employees are supposed to do, etc. Chances are that the only reason there was a union to being with is because the business was doing that sort of thing to begin with. Sometimes even things that were illegal by state law. Trouble is, without a union, who are you going to complain to? The manager that is telling you to do these illegal things? Raising a stink through state channels will just get you fired for "unrelated" reasons.
Whatever else a union might do, it definitely wouldn't serve the interests of the company.
It probably will. These days the main cause of unionization is bad management. The main thing that the unions are there for is to come up with a set of mutually understood rules for both employer and employee to follow. It might not make management happy as they won't be fuedal lords anymore, but their operation will probably run much better. This was the case where I work at, and in the words of the managers who might not get their way all the time, they'd never go back to when they did because things run so much smoother now. If businesses would take the responsibility to do anything but let managers run roughshood over all their employees, they'd cut unionization off at the bud.
> the owner of the business choose voluntarily the tools to use.
I recently purchased a business laptop, and even though I would have preferred Windows 7 or 8......... I had no choice. Windows X was the only option.
Pretty much true. Even though we have an Enterprise license and can install Windows 7, no newer hardware though our supplier has drivers to support Windows 7. It's either buy a 2+ year old computer (which we sometimes do) or use Win10.
That would be perfect except the IAU already had a planet named Vulcan. It was thought to orbit inside of Mercury. Turns out Mercury just had a very elliptical orbit. Since they used it once, they typically wont use it again. Bummer.
Maybe Vulcan will just end up being the Springfield of planets.
So what is being an "asshole" or "dick" actually? It's almost exclusively a judgement made by 50% of those in the specific scenario. One person feels another person had emotionally disappointed them. How easy is it to go through life accomplishing greatness in any area, and at the same time making sure every single person you come in contact with, has their particular personal sensibilities pandered to?
Reminds me of something a comedian said: "Comedians are often told they have crossed a line. By the nature of the business, this happens. If you're a comedian and have never been told you have gone too far, you probably aren't going far enough. If you are always being told you have gone too far, you're probably just an asshole."
Every now and then you will offend somebody. When that happens you just apologize and go on. If you are always offending people and refuse to do anything but justify your position, especially if you feel you are having to pander to people, you're most like assured to be an asshole.
Nope, its not a translation problem, its a line of children, 2 by 2, led by teacher(s) to get from one place to another
WTF is the etymology of calling two rows of children a crocodile? Is that the easiest formation in which you can march them into a swamp to be eaten?
A single file queue of people is referred to as a snake. Stands that a double file line would be something also reptilian, larger, and not quite as agile.
Which to the rest of the world pretty much translates to:
Centrist: 10%
Right: 50%
Far Right: 40%
I'll consider a large corporation part of the left when they have their on section advocating workers issues with a separate chain of command from management and their own CxO.
Slashdot Mirror
What could be going on?
1) Everything is exactly as Bloomberg states and the Chinese have performed a supply line hack on American industry. - The strong denials from all public sources that might confirm this, including to the public and stockholders, would seem to indicates that a serious investigation is going on and the government is ordering everybody to deny hard if not out lie to preserve it. However, why keep it secret it the cat's out of the bag? China, and anybody involved, would already know and be taking steps to cover their tracks. Seems the proper response by law enforcement to break the news and step up public investigation ASAP.
2) Bloomberg's editors and writers are just misinterpreting whatever happened to Apple that they say was a compromised driver caught in the lab coming from a variety of sources who don't really have that good of info. - Bad stain on Bloomberg's reputation and failure of their editors to preserve the brand. Will no doubt hurt their operation when things come to light as their business is acting as a reliable source of business news.
3) The authors of the article are fabricating the article either from a collection of unrelated sources, or whole of cloth and selling it to Bloomberg, perhaps not expecting the attention it's getting. - A worse stain on Bloomberg as their editors still fell for it, but pretty much ruin for the author's careers as journalists in the future.
4) Bloomberg and the authors are in cahoots to create a fictitious story that can't be confirmed or denied in order to manipulate the markets, push international policy, and/or create fear of China. - This might actually spell doom for Bloomberg, or might not. There are plenty of "news sources" that could get away with such things and nobody would even blink if it was proved to be true. Perhaps Bloomberg thinks they can get sales and get away with it at the same time. I'm sure some people have played harder and faster with more on the line and the end result would depend on how trustworthy the public actually takes Bloomberg to be to begin with. It would also probably be straying into legal territory it it turned out toe be manufactured, cause the people involved to lose their jobs, and maybe do jail time.
4)Somebody has manufactured the story and fed it to Bloomberg's authors in order to manipulate the markets, push international policy, create fear of China, hurt Bloomberg's reputation, or any combination of these. - Now we're practically back into spook territory. There are certainly people who would like to do any number of things, but to have the scale to do beyond simply option #2 would take resources and also probably venture into legal territory for acting against Bloomberg, the companies involved, China, etc.
Moving government data onto servers that they have no control over sounds like an absolutely god-awful idea. Why would any company want to move to "cloud"-based storage? Are they forgetting that "the cloud" is just some guy's computer?
Companies only really care about the bottom line and the SLA. If a cloud company offers it for cheaper and has the terms and SLA that the company expects they can get with their own people (or better), then they'll take it. IME, Google probably backed out because they won't meet the government's terms for security and control. Google typically won't even discuss HIPAA terms in contracts. Along with the latest Google+ breach, they probably just aren't up to doing the security that the government is requiring int heir contracts.
Frankly, I think 90% of NASA's sense of deorbiting-urgency is precisely BECAUSE they'd rather see things like the ISS and Hubble get intentionally destroyed than risk allowing someone else to metaphorically grab them from the curb before the garbage truck arrives.
I think you're wrong. It's because they could build and send in replacements, multiple in the case of Hubble, quicker and cheaper than doing manned missions to refurbish the old stuff in orbit. Anybody who could go up there and grab them, would be able to put a newer better one up instead for less money.
Car analogy: It's like the old truck. It was a good truck, and when it runs, it still does its base job. However, it's old and repairs and maintenance are getting more and more frequent and more costly. So much that you could buy a new truck with better carrying and towing capacity (and new seats and stereo) along with better gas milage for what you would have to put into the old truck to keep it running in the time a new truck would still be under warranty.
I thought that's where the turtles are.
Nope, it's elephants all the way down.
For some reason, people who don't live in Mexico or Canada seem to think Mexicans and Canadians get upset when people living in the USA get called "Americans."
We don't.
Possibly true. However, it doesn't hurt to keep them in mind and there are some people who do care. Columbians mostly in my experience and they appreciate the effort when I catch and correct myself before they can do so./p.
If you had any google account they created a blank Google + account for you. Rather than leave mine blank I went ahead and filled it with all sorts of fake information and then never returned. I think on mine I went to Harvard, competitively wrestle bears for a living, and live in Turkmenistan. Or something like that- and have some obviously fake name.
I never miss an opportunity to provide fake data as noise to any company that tries to get information on me.
I do something similar with important info for sites that don't really need it. I'm just waiting for the day I get denied something by a 3rd party because my real info doesn't match up with my fake info.
NASA has chosen the BE-4. Too bad it uses single turbo thus requiring an interseal.
ULA has chosen the BE-4 because Rocketdyne refuses to put in any of their own money on their own engine, which pretty much says they'll never even have a working prototype. Even the ULA is probably expecting more money to make the Vulcan a reality and might not put in any of their own money, probably dooming it to vaporware. This leaves SpaceX and Blue Origin as serious choices. However, since the Senate gets to decide how NASA spends money, we can't discount the SLS yet.
I don't know why in simple hell the Mars batshit crazy fanbois didn't choose the Moon as a beta site in the first goddam place.
Because most of the "Mars batshit crazy fanbois" how far we actually are from being able to go to Mars and how much work is still needed to make that journey. I've looked at thing and asked people in lectures and giving interviews on the topic how long would it take to get to Mars with a manned mission once given Apollo level political buy in and budget, and the answer is 20-30 years. That time almost certainly involves testing many technologies in a moon fly by if not landing. Even Musk has said that a manned mars mission will cost 200-600 Billion, with his bets on closer to 600 Billion. That means you'd have to more than double the NASA budget and tell them to use the increase only on getting to Mars, and we'd get there in 30 years.
He should ship using the imperial, or standard ton. They’re 10% lighter! Think of the SAVINGS!
Nope, the Imperial ton is 40 pounds heavier than the (metric) tonne. The "short ton" used by Americans is 10% lighter than the tonne.
Because who doesn't like a pseudoscience theory that can quantify the compression ratio of angels dancing on the head of a tulip as it accelerates towards light speed?
Step one: Assume for spherical angels...
By contrast, dark matter looks at the same problem--centrifugal forces should overcome the gravity of galaxies and hurl their stars out into space, but don't--and suggests that there's a magical, undiscovered form of matter which we can't measure, accounting for 85% of all mass and 25% of all energy in the universe. This creates new gravity (which we can't quite measure, apparently) so the universe doesn't break apart. We can't see it, we can't find it, we can't interact with it, but it's there because things happen that shouldn't happen.
Your knowledge seems a few decades out of date. It's not just galactic rotation, but also observed gravitational lensing around galaxies, observable effects in the cosmic background radiation from the early universe, etc that contribute and are all explained by dark matter. We can measure and find it pretty easily through gravitational lensing. We can interact with it through gravity, but gravity is a very weak force and our current level of detection does not allow for detection below very large scales currently. We have even detected when it has been dislocated from the main body of a galaxy or even removed completely from galactic collisions. Those are going to be the really hard examples of observational data that any other theory such as this one will have to explain, and if it doesn't, then there will have to be several other similarly large discoveries in other fields that will have to be made to go along with it to explain what we are currently observing.
Next will be a Bill banning people from being mean on line.
Naw, the next law will just require them to state they are an asshole in their sig.
this also needs to explain observed gravitational lensing (and lack of it in certain cases), observed cosmic background radiation, and several other directions that have come to point to dark matter. No it has not. Why should it?
It has nothing to do with it ...
What is next? It should predict global warming? Nuclear decay?
Which part of quantified inertia did yo not get? What has inertia to do with cosmic background radiation? Hae? Or gravity lensing?
What does inertia have to do with that is exactly the question. Currently, the working theory of dark matter explains the experimental observations for all of these other things also. If a new theory of inertia explains one of them but not the others also, now there is a whole lot of other answers that need to be found for things that should be related.
Car analogy: We have car that turns over but won't start. It will run briefly with starter fluid applied. The gas gauge reads zero. If we open the gas tank, we smell no gas fumes. However, due to the construction of the fuel intake, we cannot put a hose or dipstick down into the tank to directly measure the level of gasoline. Current theory is that the car is out of gas. Somebody comes up with the idea that the construction of the fuel intake also is preventing us from smelling fumes from the gas. Very fine and well, but explanations for why the car won't start and why the gas gauge reads empty still must be found if it is the case there is gas in the tank but we just can't smell it.
So, like if the car does have gas, but we can't smell it which means there is some other problem with the gas feed as well as a broken gas gauge. Likewise, if this theory of inertia explains galactic rotation but not the others, then we have to come up with explanations for them also which will probably mean that not just dark matter turn out to be wrong, but also several other fields of astronomy and physics also.
Yeah. Relativity would've been a fringe theory to anyone who believed in classic Newtonian physics at the turn of the 20th century. Relativity was given consideration because it provided an explanation for some of the observed weirdness which Newtonian physics didn't (Michelson-Morley, orbit of Mercury). If this was just some guy advocating a theory out of the blue, then I'd be suspect of DARPA funding him. But if his theory can explain galactic rotation without using dark matter, then I think it's definitely worth investigating.
Sure. Let's investigate it. However, don't get any hopes up. Besides galactic rotation, this also needs to explain observed gravitational lensing (and lack of it in certain cases), observed cosmic background radiation, and several other directions that have come to point to dark matter. 70 years ago, this would have been a really intriguing experiment, and it was since this is just a modified MOND theory. However, now it's up against 70 years of testing and experiments which it will have to explain. End result, even if it does exist as the reason, it will still be best shown as a mathematical method that will treat it as a halo of matter that only interacts by gravity with other nearby matter and light.
The SLS and the cis-Lunar station proposed will be useless for going to Mars. The most efficient method is going direct from Earth orbit to Mars.
I disagree. I won't argue for the SLS except to say that NASA does what they are told with the money they are given that is already earmarked for those goals. However, a Lunar station is an important part of the mission to Mars. There is a lot about deep space habitats we don't know. There is a lot of engineering that needs to be applied and have the bugs worked out. There is a lot of research that needs to be done about humans in deep space for long periods with regards to radiation, gravity, sustainability, etc. There's more needed for applications such as using sufficient propulsion on a structure as would be needed to go to Mars. Apollo 1 didn't land people on the Moon. Mercury was needed before that. There is still plenty of work needed before we can go to Mars.
Not a twin in those regards.
Well, let's say evil twin.
When you're being paid minimum wage in a 3-4% unemployment environment, who gives a fuck. If they screw with you, go somewhere that they don't.
Well, it's not always a 3-4% unemployment environment. Still, why should the workers be punished by having to find a new job? They might like their job, the commute might be ideal, it very well might not be minimum wage; in a small town, there might not be someplace else to go. Better to unionize and tell the manager that he can go find someplace else to work at.
Most unionizations efforts fail, not because of illegal company actions, but because the employees don't see the union as a benefit, often with good reason. They get a union deduction from every paycheck, and end up with a more confrontational working environment, less opportunity for individual advancement, and get to see their job outsourced to Mexico (or at least to South Carolina).
Doesn't really match my experience. The main reason that the employees give backing to the union is due to bad management and the union does provide for an agreed upon set of rules that makes for a less confrontational working environment, and opportunity for individual advancement. If the job is moving to Mexico, it was going there anyway and the union is the excuse, not the cause.
You're spot on regarding UAW. I grew up in Detroit, and saw it first hand with many family and friends...it was mostly mob run. Additionally, the grocery store union that my mom had to join (and was eventually a steward for) was pretty useless as well. They did virtually nothing for the dues that the clerks were required to pay from what was already essentially minimum wage.
I said the same thing when I worked for a grocery store and had a union. Then go to work for a non-union place and see how that can turn out: have your schedule changed with no notice, be told to skip or cut short breaks, charged to do jobs that higher paid employees are supposed to do, etc. Chances are that the only reason there was a union to being with is because the business was doing that sort of thing to begin with. Sometimes even things that were illegal by state law. Trouble is, without a union, who are you going to complain to? The manager that is telling you to do these illegal things? Raising a stink through state channels will just get you fired for "unrelated" reasons.
Whatever else a union might do, it definitely wouldn't serve the interests of the company.
It probably will. These days the main cause of unionization is bad management. The main thing that the unions are there for is to come up with a set of mutually understood rules for both employer and employee to follow. It might not make management happy as they won't be fuedal lords anymore, but their operation will probably run much better. This was the case where I work at, and in the words of the managers who might not get their way all the time, they'd never go back to when they did because things run so much smoother now. If businesses would take the responsibility to do anything but let managers run roughshood over all their employees, they'd cut unionization off at the bud.
> the owner of the business choose voluntarily the tools to use.
I recently purchased a business laptop, and even though I would have preferred Windows 7 or 8......... I had no choice. Windows X was the only option.
Pretty much true. Even though we have an Enterprise license and can install Windows 7, no newer hardware though our supplier has drivers to support Windows 7. It's either buy a 2+ year old computer (which we sometimes do) or use Win10.
That would be perfect except the IAU already had a planet named Vulcan. It was thought to orbit inside of Mercury. Turns out Mercury just had a very elliptical orbit. Since they used it once, they typically wont use it again. Bummer.
Maybe Vulcan will just end up being the Springfield of planets.
So what is being an "asshole" or "dick" actually? It's almost exclusively a judgement made by 50% of those in the specific scenario. One person feels another person had emotionally disappointed them. How easy is it to go through life accomplishing greatness in any area, and at the same time making sure every single person you come in contact with, has their particular personal sensibilities pandered to?
Reminds me of something a comedian said: "Comedians are often told they have crossed a line. By the nature of the business, this happens. If you're a comedian and have never been told you have gone too far, you probably aren't going far enough. If you are always being told you have gone too far, you're probably just an asshole."
Every now and then you will offend somebody. When that happens you just apologize and go on. If you are always offending people and refuse to do anything but justify your position, especially if you feel you are having to pander to people, you're most like assured to be an asshole.
Nope, its not a translation problem, its a line of children, 2 by 2, led by teacher(s) to get from one place to another
WTF is the etymology of calling two rows of children a crocodile? Is that the easiest formation in which you can march them into a swamp to be eaten?
A single file queue of people is referred to as a snake. Stands that a double file line would be something also reptilian, larger, and not quite as agile.
I'd like to revise that list:
Left: 10% Centrist: 50% Right: 40%
Which to the rest of the world pretty much translates to:
Centrist: 10%
Right: 50%
Far Right: 40%
I'll consider a large corporation part of the left when they have their on section advocating workers issues with a separate chain of command from management and their own CxO.