I don't think there was a ned for any eeminders. They knew all about what was happening and they weren't suposed to be doing it. There just wasn't any consequences for disobeying god yet. All that is built from us knowing the story and stories that came later.
Yes, because we all know it is exactly equivilent to compare something that has always been known as a work of fiction and was created as such just a generation or so ago to something that possibly predates written records that has always been considered true by at least a portion of people and the information within is the basis for three of the worlds largest religions dating back several thousand years or more.
Because that is exactly the same. And i suppose your girlfriend got pegnant from kissing because it is the same too..
You don't need to know hebrew. There are many concordances you can use to reference it. As was stated, it is one of the most studied books out there.
I suggest the strong's exhaustive concordance but there are others. They list the usages of the words and context through its usage. So when woman first appears, we see it as a name for what was created from the rib of adam. When wife appears, we see that man should leave his parents to start a family of his own with his wife or woman.
What you will find with most all old languages is that the words in use is much smaller then what we have availible today. Imagine it being like the smurfs where smurfing the smurf could mean about anything until we see the context it is used in and we can understand what was meant.
God married them of course. Or should i say god created them married. Its the whole made from a rib and when married becoming one thing. God btw, spoke with and had a relationship with adam and eve and even their children.
As for a bible, they wouldn't need one. The bible is meant to be sort of a history book about the interactions of god and man in which we are reminded of his will, grace, knowlege, and punishments. They were the content not the ones needing the reminders.
You are forgetting that you still are not off the hook for possible criminal charges. Colyright can have criminal charges also.
Rule 14 is for civil proceeding and while i did not consider it, you still have to invoke it which costs money and time. And all that is considering that i cannot weasle out of it. One of the halmarks of grafters is practicing signing your name differently then you regular signiture. If i attemp to copy your hand writing in my signiture, it may be possible to make it appear as if you forged my signiture.
But i agree, you likely can push it off onto me fromthe way i originally set it up.
I don't think you understand how ceo pay generally works. The bossess making 5 mil or better a year rarely has a salary for that amount. Usually it is a base pay plus bonuses and or stock options. Both of the later become hyperinflated when the company is successful which is what allows the huge salary. Its like a ball player who makes 20 mil a year. Only a portikn of that is from playing ball and the rest is from endorsements and speaking/appearances but is often reportef as playerX made 20 mil instead of listing them separtely.
Whether you think it is like the minimum wage or not is sort of irrelevant. I explained or attemped to explain the process where it will fail.
Also, there are no tax breaks for big busineses that smaller ones csnnot aldo take advantage of. The only exception that i know of are specific breaks to locate s business somewhere or for doing something they wouldn't normally do which allows them to cover their costs. For instance, my brother owns a construction company and the state allows him to deduct 45% of the wages he pays handicapped people working there who would not be if that didn't exist. But thAt isn't a big business either.
I don't care what you do or do mot have a problem with when it is not yours to make decisions about. You are right though, in a democracy you can petition the government. But you are forgeting that i can too. Also the government may be limitef in what it can or cannot do by constitutions making dome things you want done impossible through government.
What in the hell are you talking about? I never said the government cannot rehulate companies or that they are people. I said it is not your company and i certainly am not talking to a government. Please stick with what was said and ingore what you want to have been said.
I would assume they concluded that settling would be less costly than fighting it. The fact that it was settled for an undisclosed amount probably suggests that the original author was asking something more reasonable then what was awarded in court.
The problem with copyright is that dissemination or distribution in and of itself is a violation so even if I swore to you that I owned the copyright and you could distribute it, you are not entirely off the hook if I was not truthful. Of course any sane court would likely keep any penalties as low as possible if you could prove that. Some juries might even toss it out because of the mens rea involved but it would require going to court and risking losing the case.
I really do not get your fascination with other posters but no one ever said daddy knows best. I said no one was hurt until they knew about the actions and it was mostly the reactions that caused harm. Not that they were justified or moral or anything. Comparing it to child abuse is silly.
But it is still 140 employees that were making more that are now out of a job and will have to make less when they return to work.
The constant changing of employees losing a job while others basically replace them is only part of the problem. Sure, they are a net zero when you consider other employees are hired to replace them. But when you go from making $20 an hour to $12 an hour or $10 an hour average salary, you are worse off then when you started because now you cannot afford the life you became accustomed to.
It's like a friend of mine got a union job as a heavy equipment operator. He used to brag that he was making $28 an hour but always seemed broke. Turns out he only worked a month or so at a time with a couple months off in between because he was low on the seniority pole and work dropped off. Before that, he made roughly $18 an hour on non prevailing wage jobs and $25 an hour on prevailing wage jobs. Both these wages paid overtime after 40 hours a week. He lost everything- his home that he couldn't pay for, his car that he couldn't pay for, it caused problems with his wife who eventually left him (which contributed to losing the rest). The drop in wages, even though he made more on the hour, devastated him financially to the point he ended up begging to get his old job back.
Now I'm not saying that people making more will work less, I'm saying that people used to the extra income because of some ratio rule will also be devastated when their pay is dropped and their hopes for future employment turns out to pay a fraction of what it did. So sure, 140 employees will get jobs and you can call it a wash from an unemployment perspective, but you cannot say it will not cause harm to real people and their lives. Think about it, this is way more complicated then 2+2=1+3. This is more like 2+2=6-2 because people with more will be forced to deal with less. And that is before management gets ideas to get around it like spinning all the employees off into different companies then contracting with them they only employ management making roughly the same wages on paper.
This!!. If there is no way to win, there is less likelihood of starting the game.
Of course this only works for sane leaders who are not banking on the Chaos ushering the return of the Messiah or bringing the 12th Imam out of hiding to fulfill some distorted religious prophecy. This is sort of why it is important to keep Iran from getting the bomb.
Lol.. and you don't see how that fallacy is problematic? I mean seriously, we have people who oppose liberal policies being declared racists simply because the president is black due to idiots thinking that shit is proper.
The problem is the comparison is completely out of line with the reality of the situation. Its nowhere remotely close. It is like saying it is ok to claim gay marriage is like perverts raping women in the street when the fact of the matter is that no one is being raped and no one is getting hurt.
The only intent of that line of reasoning is to attempt to label someone who opposed the point of view in a negative light by associated with molesting children or owning slaves. It is an invalid debating tactic that serves no purpose whatsoever in constructive discourse. It is what idiots bring to the table when facts are not on their side. It is saying that if you cannot win your audience with facts and logic, make them hate your opponents more then they hate you. Stop navel gazing and actually think about it for a minute.
You know, not only is it the ivy legue networks, but sometimes people are given high paying jobs because their family owns the business or they are golfing or church buddies with the owners. What you seem to be forgetting is that it is not your money, not your company, and not your decision to determine who is given what pay or what proportion. Why do you think it is?
Wow.. you really are screwed up in the head. Do you actually think living under a dictator is better then what you have now? I mean seriously, look at North Korea.
Oh, wait what is that? You do not think south korea would be anything like north korea if the UN hadn't stepped in? Well, that would be ignoring history. The same tin pot dictator wanting to unite korea is the same one that has been running the north. And no, the north is not screwed up because of UN sanctions, both china and Russia ignored those sanctions up until the fall of the iron curtain and china's desire to be given trade status with the US.
I'm sure you posted anonymous because you wouldn't ever want such stupidity ever associated with your name or any online identity. Not only have you ignored history, you have ignored the present and have some drug induced concept of reality that I am not sure even exists in books praising leftist ideals.
BTW, South Korea has had better than a free trade agreement for most of it's existence. They enjoyed favored trade status which is like free trade other then it didn't remove restrictions on US products being sold in SK. All the free trade agreement would have done is removed barriers for US goods being sold in S.K. markets. As for the free trade with Canada, you are an idiot as Canada has benefited vastly more then the US has over the ordeal through the years. There were some areas of problems but the Canadian dollar is or was finally worth more then the US dollar specifically because of the free trade agreements benefits to Canada.
I didn't know the Falklands was militarily on par with Russia, China, Germany, Pakistan, India, or any other country with similar or better population and resources as England has.
I also didn't know that my statement was so vague that comparing Russia's ability to pown European countries if they lost support from the US and half the other countries in Europe was the same as saying the UK would fall if one of it's territories on a freaking island decided to be independent.
If you thought about it you would. This is nothing like a minimum wage at all. With a minimum wage, everyone has to adjust to the new pay floor where some or most of the industry was likely already over it. With a maximum wage ratio, only the successful companies will have a new arbitrary floor in which only they are subject to.
Look at it this way, suppose you and your neighbor make about the same amount of money. Suppose your bills are about the same too. Now suppose the lot in between you goes up for sale, you both decide you want it. Now suppose the government steps in and says all the sudden your electricity and utilities will be double because you are 1001 feet from the transformer requiring a larger something or another to service your house. So you and your neighbor attempt to purchase this empty lot, but because of the extra costs you have, you can only afford so much where your neighbor can now afford more and you lose.
You see, the differences between a pay ratio and a minimum wage is that only some of the companies will be subject to it while others will not. If you benefit from it, your job will be in jeopardy when my company competes against yours with the same product and quality for a cheaper amount because your labor is higher then the prevailing wage. And to stop my company from being subject to the same problems, I divide it up into sister companies and take a job leading all of them but never for more then the magic pay at one company.
If you rob a bank and get 10 million dollars then brag about it in a bar and I steal it from you, I still stole it regardless of your legal right to have it. This is just the same as if you were a crack dealer and I stole your crack, I still stole it.
So while you are imagining pornographic images of titillating tubers, stole is the proper word to be used no matter if the government had legal ownership or not. The bottom line was that the information was not his to disclose.
You know when you are trying to say the fish was this big and you are an expert fisherman second to none but it was only that big and floating next to the shore already dead- that is you.
Maybe the NSA and US government agencies isn't exactly who the user is afraid of monitoring their accounts. Maybe in areas like Syria where a simple tween of one faction or the other's troop advancement can mean something more serious then the US government knowing your panties are red today or whatever else you are tweeting. Maybe in Egypt or Iran, it is dangerous for the tweeter too. There are lots of entities you might not want to know what is in your tweets when they are marked private. Some could be good reasons and some less so and the reasons don't have to involve the US at all.
It is more like the neighbors discovering the kid was being abused by his parents. As long as they didn't know it was happening, it was a happy neighborhood.
Not at all. The information wasn't being used to hurt anyone which is why child abuse is such a silly comparison.
Only if you rather have ongoing child abuse instead of truth.
No one got hurt, if you must compare it to child abuse, it would be the angry father in his wife beater T-shirt yelling at the kid because he thought he might be doing something wrong and the neighbors crying abuse when they hear him yelling and start assaulting him.
I swear, don't over dramatize this as no one got hurt and no property was destroyed until after the reveal and the protests started. You sound just like those idiots who burned down a pediatrics office/house/whatever the hell happened- mistaking the title for a pedophile. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4719364.stm
Tying my boss's salary to my wage is the only rational way to force him to pay me more.
It is also the quickest way to be out of a job. Seriously, if you are that good of a worker, just get a job somewhere else that pays more like most everyone else does. But if you don't, you will find that the job you have isn't there for long when the labor costs end up making it uncompetitive in the market and your raise contributes to the company filing bankruptcy.
If I join a union, I'll be fired for any reason they can think of. If I ask for a pay increase, I get asked what I've done to deserve it - I don't know why they ask, as it doesn't matter how much you've done, what you provide to the business, as I know for a fact that there is no money in the budget (from our parent corporation) to allow wage increases. (One of the managers let that slip last year.)
I would suggest finding another job. Seriously, if you know there is no possible way for you to get a raise at this company, then move on. There are companies out there who will hire you simply because you have a good work record of being at a specific company over a year or two. Believe it or not, that means you will stick around for a while after they invest time and money into training you. They will be up front with you about whether you can make more or not and you can decide whether or not to accept. You may even end up in another field altogether.
To get in before you suggest it: yes, leaving for another job would be rational. Unfortunately, you're making quite an assumption - that there are other jobs out there that don't have identical conditions. We have approximately 14% unemployment in my area. There are virtually no other jobs out there, and I'm so poorly paid that moving to another region is untenable.
Yes, I could go and get a degree, but I'm absolutely certain that it wouldn't help, and so are you: I already have a science degree.
First, I'm not all that certain that extra degrees do much. So you would be right in assuming I don't think it would help. But to the rest, if you are half as good at your job as you said, if you have time invested at the company, then you are a plus to being hired over the others. Of course the worst that can happen is when you put your applications in or submit your resume, they don't ca;ll you back. Probably what will happen is that when they call for the reference of you actually working there, someone will say we don't want to lose this guy, we need to pay him more somehow. If that doesn't happen, wait until you get an offer that suits you better then where you are. Even with 14% unemployment, with a job and work history, you will stand out better then others. Looking at recent metropolitan employment statistics, it would appear you are in California or New Jersey as those are the closest I could find to 14% unemployment rates. Perhaps traveling to a nearby location would be beneficial to finding gainful employment. You might be completely stuck too because of local politics. But I do know that tons of jobs were outsourced and off shored when the unions ran their wages too high. Loads more were lost when companies folded. Keep demanding more and more money and your job will likely follow suit.
It sounds to me like you lack the confidence to sell yourself. Trust me when I say longevity at any company is an asset that if the company you are at doesn't respect, others certainly will. The only problem is you need to stay at the new company for a while in order to not ruin the stability benefit you have going for yourself. Unless you are in your 40s and half of them are part time jobs beside of a full time job, having 15 jobs listed on your resume is not a good thing.
Do CEOs labor 50 or even 12 times harder than janitors?
It doesn't matter how much harder they work. If the janitors want to make the same wage, they should get the same jobs.
No, in the end it is telling companies that they must pay all employees closer to the average amount. Companies may freely choose to raise the average instead of limiting the top outliers.
No, economics limits the pay of the employees so it is a defacto limit on top pay. You see, the boss's pay of often tied to performance of the company. When the company does well, they get more pay. when it does poorly, they get less pay. The difference between them and the janitor is that the base amount is high enough to pay their bills either way where a janitor would be financially devastated going from $20 an hour to $12 an hour when the company isn't doing well. This also isn't something non-ordinary as many companies ask employees to take less pay in hard times and often they refuse. This ends up with the companies in bankruptcy protection and sometimes even closing the doors. Look at GM and Hostess for recent examples.
Companies succeed or fail as an organism and rely on the performance of every part.
Yes, and when the employees salaried are bloated and competition appears, they either go under or offshore in a last ditch attempt to remain alive.
Your philosophy is like saying the brain deserves 50 times more calories than the hands because it's smart enough to negotiate a better salary from the stomach. And that this continues to be morally correct even when the fingers are starving and falling off.
Actually, if you must use an analogy to claim my philosophy is a certain way, it would be that the brain requires more calories because it provides a different function- a function in more demand allowing it to negotiate a better salary. Although it is true that the brain does require substantially more calories which is about 20 percent consumed at resting metabolic rate, the total function of the brain sort of justifies it. I don't know if you knew that when making your comparison or if it was an unintended consequence of trying to make a point. But the point it made was in support of my position.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think there was a ned for any eeminders. They knew all about what was happening and they weren't suposed to be doing it. There just wasn't any consequences for disobeying god yet. All that is built from us knowing the story and stories that came later.
Yes, because we all know it is exactly equivilent to compare something that has always been known as a work of fiction and was created as such just a generation or so ago to something that possibly predates written records that has always been considered true by at least a portion of people and the information within is the basis for three of the worlds largest religions dating back several thousand years or more.
Because that is exactly the same. And i suppose your girlfriend got pegnant from kissing because it is the same too..
Sometimes people just crack me up.
You don't need to know hebrew. There are many concordances you can use to reference it. As was stated, it is one of the most studied books out there.
I suggest the strong's exhaustive concordance but there are others. They list the usages of the words and context through its usage. So when woman first appears, we see it as a name for what was created from the rib of adam. When wife appears, we see that man should leave his parents to start a family of his own with his wife or woman.
What you will find with most all old languages is that the words in use is much smaller then what we have availible today. Imagine it being like the smurfs where smurfing the smurf could mean about anything until we see the context it is used in and we can understand what was meant.
The concordances help in this regard a lot.
God married them of course. Or should i say god created them married. Its the whole made from a rib and when married becoming one thing. God btw, spoke with and had a relationship with adam and eve and even their children.
As for a bible, they wouldn't need one. The bible is meant to be sort of a history book about the interactions of god and man in which we are reminded of his will, grace, knowlege, and punishments. They were the content not the ones needing the reminders.
You are forgetting that you still are not off the hook for possible criminal charges. Colyright can have criminal charges also.
Rule 14 is for civil proceeding and while i did not consider it, you still have to invoke it which costs money and time. And all that is considering that i cannot weasle out of it. One of the halmarks of grafters is practicing signing your name differently then you regular signiture. If i attemp to copy your hand writing in my signiture, it may be possible to make it appear as if you forged my signiture.
But i agree, you likely can push it off onto me fromthe way i originally set it up.
http://www.examiner.com/article/iran-s-apocalyptic-vision
I'M not sure about that.
I don't think you understand how ceo pay generally works. The bossess making 5 mil or better a year rarely has a salary for that amount. Usually it is a base pay plus bonuses and or stock options. Both of the later become hyperinflated when the company is successful which is what allows the huge salary. Its like a ball player who makes 20 mil a year. Only a portikn of that is from playing ball and the rest is from endorsements and speaking/appearances but is often reportef as playerX made 20 mil instead of listing them separtely.
Whether you think it is like the minimum wage or not is sort of irrelevant. I explained or attemped to explain the process where it will fail.
Also, there are no tax breaks for big busineses that smaller ones csnnot aldo take advantage of. The only exception that i know of are specific breaks to locate s business somewhere or for doing something they wouldn't normally do which allows them to cover their costs. For instance, my brother owns a construction company and the state allows him to deduct 45% of the wages he pays handicapped people working there who would not be if that didn't exist. But thAt isn't a big business either.
I don't care what you do or do mot have a problem with when it is not yours to make decisions about. You are right though, in a democracy you can petition the government. But you are forgeting that i can too. Also the government may be limitef in what it can or cannot do by constitutions making dome things you want done impossible through government.
What in the hell are you talking about? I never said the government cannot rehulate companies or that they are people. I said it is not your company and i certainly am not talking to a government. Please stick with what was said and ingore what you want to have been said.
I would assume they concluded that settling would be less costly than fighting it. The fact that it was settled for an undisclosed amount probably suggests that the original author was asking something more reasonable then what was awarded in court.
The problem with copyright is that dissemination or distribution in and of itself is a violation so even if I swore to you that I owned the copyright and you could distribute it, you are not entirely off the hook if I was not truthful. Of course any sane court would likely keep any penalties as low as possible if you could prove that. Some juries might even toss it out because of the mens rea involved but it would require going to court and risking losing the case.
I strongly think it was just because of all the copyright enforcement France has engaged in with the attempts to protect their own media companies.
It is only fitting that French companies play by the same rules they and the French government attempt to force others to play by.
And I say that after watching movies all night on pirate websites that I would never pay to see in the first place.
I really do not get your fascination with other posters but no one ever said daddy knows best. I said no one was hurt until they knew about the actions and it was mostly the reactions that caused harm. Not that they were justified or moral or anything. Comparing it to child abuse is silly.
But it is still 140 employees that were making more that are now out of a job and will have to make less when they return to work.
The constant changing of employees losing a job while others basically replace them is only part of the problem. Sure, they are a net zero when you consider other employees are hired to replace them. But when you go from making $20 an hour to $12 an hour or $10 an hour average salary, you are worse off then when you started because now you cannot afford the life you became accustomed to.
It's like a friend of mine got a union job as a heavy equipment operator. He used to brag that he was making $28 an hour but always seemed broke. Turns out he only worked a month or so at a time with a couple months off in between because he was low on the seniority pole and work dropped off. Before that, he made roughly $18 an hour on non prevailing wage jobs and $25 an hour on prevailing wage jobs. Both these wages paid overtime after 40 hours a week. He lost everything- his home that he couldn't pay for, his car that he couldn't pay for, it caused problems with his wife who eventually left him (which contributed to losing the rest). The drop in wages, even though he made more on the hour, devastated him financially to the point he ended up begging to get his old job back.
Now I'm not saying that people making more will work less, I'm saying that people used to the extra income because of some ratio rule will also be devastated when their pay is dropped and their hopes for future employment turns out to pay a fraction of what it did. So sure, 140 employees will get jobs and you can call it a wash from an unemployment perspective, but you cannot say it will not cause harm to real people and their lives. Think about it, this is way more complicated then 2+2=1+3. This is more like 2+2=6-2 because people with more will be forced to deal with less. And that is before management gets ideas to get around it like spinning all the employees off into different companies then contracting with them they only employ management making roughly the same wages on paper.
This!!. If there is no way to win, there is less likelihood of starting the game.
Of course this only works for sane leaders who are not banking on the Chaos ushering the return of the Messiah or bringing the 12th Imam out of hiding to fulfill some distorted religious prophecy. This is sort of why it is important to keep Iran from getting the bomb.
Lol.. and you don't see how that fallacy is problematic? I mean seriously, we have people who oppose liberal policies being declared racists simply because the president is black due to idiots thinking that shit is proper.
The problem is the comparison is completely out of line with the reality of the situation. Its nowhere remotely close. It is like saying it is ok to claim gay marriage is like perverts raping women in the street when the fact of the matter is that no one is being raped and no one is getting hurt.
The only intent of that line of reasoning is to attempt to label someone who opposed the point of view in a negative light by associated with molesting children or owning slaves. It is an invalid debating tactic that serves no purpose whatsoever in constructive discourse. It is what idiots bring to the table when facts are not on their side. It is saying that if you cannot win your audience with facts and logic, make them hate your opponents more then they hate you. Stop navel gazing and actually think about it for a minute.
You know, not only is it the ivy legue networks, but sometimes people are given high paying jobs because their family owns the business or they are golfing or church buddies with the owners. What you seem to be forgetting is that it is not your money, not your company, and not your decision to determine who is given what pay or what proportion. Why do you think it is?
Wow.. you really are screwed up in the head. Do you actually think living under a dictator is better then what you have now? I mean seriously, look at North Korea.
Oh, wait what is that? You do not think south korea would be anything like north korea if the UN hadn't stepped in? Well, that would be ignoring history. The same tin pot dictator wanting to unite korea is the same one that has been running the north. And no, the north is not screwed up because of UN sanctions, both china and Russia ignored those sanctions up until the fall of the iron curtain and china's desire to be given trade status with the US.
I'm sure you posted anonymous because you wouldn't ever want such stupidity ever associated with your name or any online identity. Not only have you ignored history, you have ignored the present and have some drug induced concept of reality that I am not sure even exists in books praising leftist ideals.
BTW, South Korea has had better than a free trade agreement for most of it's existence. They enjoyed favored trade status which is like free trade other then it didn't remove restrictions on US products being sold in SK. All the free trade agreement would have done is removed barriers for US goods being sold in S.K. markets. As for the free trade with Canada, you are an idiot as Canada has benefited vastly more then the US has over the ordeal through the years. There were some areas of problems but the Canadian dollar is or was finally worth more then the US dollar specifically because of the free trade agreements benefits to Canada.
I didn't know the Falklands was militarily on par with Russia, China, Germany, Pakistan, India, or any other country with similar or better population and resources as England has.
I also didn't know that my statement was so vague that comparing Russia's ability to pown European countries if they lost support from the US and half the other countries in Europe was the same as saying the UK would fall if one of it's territories on a freaking island decided to be independent.
If you thought about it you would. This is nothing like a minimum wage at all. With a minimum wage, everyone has to adjust to the new pay floor where some or most of the industry was likely already over it. With a maximum wage ratio, only the successful companies will have a new arbitrary floor in which only they are subject to.
Look at it this way, suppose you and your neighbor make about the same amount of money. Suppose your bills are about the same too. Now suppose the lot in between you goes up for sale, you both decide you want it. Now suppose the government steps in and says all the sudden your electricity and utilities will be double because you are 1001 feet from the transformer requiring a larger something or another to service your house. So you and your neighbor attempt to purchase this empty lot, but because of the extra costs you have, you can only afford so much where your neighbor can now afford more and you lose.
You see, the differences between a pay ratio and a minimum wage is that only some of the companies will be subject to it while others will not. If you benefit from it, your job will be in jeopardy when my company competes against yours with the same product and quality for a cheaper amount because your labor is higher then the prevailing wage. And to stop my company from being subject to the same problems, I divide it up into sister companies and take a job leading all of them but never for more then the magic pay at one company.
If you rob a bank and get 10 million dollars then brag about it in a bar and I steal it from you, I still stole it regardless of your legal right to have it. This is just the same as if you were a crack dealer and I stole your crack, I still stole it.
So while you are imagining pornographic images of titillating tubers, stole is the proper word to be used no matter if the government had legal ownership or not. The bottom line was that the information was not his to disclose.
You know when you are trying to say the fish was this big and you are an expert fisherman second to none but it was only that big and floating next to the shore already dead- that is you.
Maybe the NSA and US government agencies isn't exactly who the user is afraid of monitoring their accounts. Maybe in areas like Syria where a simple tween of one faction or the other's troop advancement can mean something more serious then the US government knowing your panties are red today or whatever else you are tweeting. Maybe in Egypt or Iran, it is dangerous for the tweeter too. There are lots of entities you might not want to know what is in your tweets when they are marked private. Some could be good reasons and some less so and the reasons don't have to involve the US at all.
Not at all. The information wasn't being used to hurt anyone which is why child abuse is such a silly comparison.
No one got hurt, if you must compare it to child abuse, it would be the angry father in his wife beater T-shirt yelling at the kid because he thought he might be doing something wrong and the neighbors crying abuse when they hear him yelling and start assaulting him.
I swear, don't over dramatize this as no one got hurt and no property was destroyed until after the reveal and the protests started. You sound just like those idiots who burned down a pediatrics office/house/whatever the hell happened- mistaking the title for a pedophile.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4719364.stm
It is also the quickest way to be out of a job. Seriously, if you are that good of a worker, just get a job somewhere else that pays more like most everyone else does. But if you don't, you will find that the job you have isn't there for long when the labor costs end up making it uncompetitive in the market and your raise contributes to the company filing bankruptcy.
I would suggest finding another job. Seriously, if you know there is no possible way for you to get a raise at this company, then move on. There are companies out there who will hire you simply because you have a good work record of being at a specific company over a year or two. Believe it or not, that means you will stick around for a while after they invest time and money into training you. They will be up front with you about whether you can make more or not and you can decide whether or not to accept. You may even end up in another field altogether.
First, I'm not all that certain that extra degrees do much. So you would be right in assuming I don't think it would help. But to the rest, if you are half as good at your job as you said, if you have time invested at the company, then you are a plus to being hired over the others. Of course the worst that can happen is when you put your applications in or submit your resume, they don't ca;ll you back. Probably what will happen is that when they call for the reference of you actually working there, someone will say we don't want to lose this guy, we need to pay him more somehow. If that doesn't happen, wait until you get an offer that suits you better then where you are. Even with 14% unemployment, with a job and work history, you will stand out better then others. Looking at recent metropolitan employment statistics, it would appear you are in California or New Jersey as those are the closest I could find to 14% unemployment rates. Perhaps traveling to a nearby location would be beneficial to finding gainful employment. You might be completely stuck too because of local politics. But I do know that tons of jobs were outsourced and off shored when the unions ran their wages too high. Loads more were lost when companies folded. Keep demanding more and more money and your job will likely follow suit.
It sounds to me like you lack the confidence to sell yourself. Trust me when I say longevity at any company is an asset that if the company you are at doesn't respect, others certainly will. The only problem is you need to stay at the new company for a while in order to not ruin the stability benefit you have going for yourself. Unless you are in your 40s and half of them are part time jobs beside of a full time job, having 15 jobs listed on your resume is not a good thing.
It doesn't matter how much harder they work. If the janitors want to make the same wage, they should get the same jobs.
No, economics limits the pay of the employees so it is a defacto limit on top pay. You see, the boss's pay of often tied to performance of the company. When the company does well, they get more pay. when it does poorly, they get less pay. The difference between them and the janitor is that the base amount is high enough to pay their bills either way where a janitor would be financially devastated going from $20 an hour to $12 an hour when the company isn't doing well. This also isn't something non-ordinary as many companies ask employees to take less pay in hard times and often they refuse. This ends up with the companies in bankruptcy protection and sometimes even closing the doors. Look at GM and Hostess for recent examples.
Yes, and when the employees salaried are bloated and competition appears, they either go under or offshore in a last ditch attempt to remain alive.
Actually, if you must use an analogy to claim my philosophy is a certain way, it would be that the brain requires more calories because it provides a different function- a function in more demand allowing it to negotiate a better salary. Although it is true that the brain does require substantially more calories which is about 20 percent consumed at resting metabolic rate, the total function of the brain sort of justifies it. I don't know if you knew that when making your comparison or if it was an unintended consequence of trying to make a point. But the point it made was in support of my position.