Not really. They can pack the pork on robotic missions as well. The key difference might be the amount of pork which can be piled on to a single project. But without the extras of manned flight, there is bound to be more projects so it will likely equal out.
Even so, keeping the goals and projects but extending the time line would continue getting the work done. I would prefer my tax dollars going to NASA for manned flight then some of the other places it goes.
Well, we decided that there might be another bank or car corporation that the US government wants to buy or just give money too. The citizens will bitch and moan about raising taxes so abandoning projects that millions have already been spent on just to reserve the other couple million for political capitol seems to be the going plan.
I don't think you understand. There will be no development in propulsion systems or energy or life support capable of carrying man because we have effectively seen manned flights ended. If the entire idea was simply scaled back to what you were saying, I don't think there would be much objection, but the problem is that this has essentially ended the concept so the development will not take place. Other agency might work on things they have no directive for or programs to use it with, but NASA has been very careful to get the most out of it's money in the past and will do so in the future. They won't work on things they aren't supposed to be doing.
And yes, Propulsion systems, energy system as well as life support systems get certified in different ways depending on if man is involved in the flight or not because of more stringent requirements for manned flights. This is so we can't make joke about lost crews like the one about the shuttle crew all having dandruff- their head and shoulders washed up on the beach.
Thank you, that's a better explanation then I gave. However, the definition of a lie does bring about the intent to deceive with it. Or at least is does in all the dictionaries I have seen.
I live in a county where the second to last sheriff got elected by declaring how corrupt the previous sheriff was and how straight and narrow he was going to be. This worked out good until the new sheriff was arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for corruption in office, embezzlement, and a few other charges that had to do with getting to buddy-buddy with the criminals in the area and abusing his power to either aid them or punish them. The current sheriff is from the same good ol'boys club as he was the lead deputy of the one who just got put in the slammer. It's unclear if he is corrupt or not as he was customarily next in line to replace the old sheriff if anything should happen to him in the line of duty. Interestingly, the investigation by the state into the old sheriff was started by a credible anonymous tip. How someone can determine the credibility of an anonymous person without knowing who he was is beyond me but the current sheriff was close enough to all the action to see what was happening.
But wait, it gets better, the current police department has lost two- not one but two chief of police in the last 15 years because of illegal actions ranging from embezzlement to guess what, corruption in office. One of them is serving time, the other worked out a deal where they resigned and all inquiries happened to be dropped. And if that isn't enough, I have personally been threatened by an officer in the lobby of the police department when attempting to file a complaint about another officer the night before who harassed me for no reason as I was entering a building to do some work. Well, the official story is that he had a reason, but only after 4 attempts to create something that would survive any scrutiny.
I know it's just a few of the law enforcement officers I need to worry about and it may be flawed logic, but I really do not give a shit. It's life and I live in it and I do not trust them. Your little branch of Mayberry R.F.D may not contain these elements but mine does.
So you would say that when a creationist who believes a God created everything in 6 days says evolution is real, that is a lie or that evolution is a lie? Of course not, that's because a lie involves an intent to deceive. Simply stating something that you have been told is true but do not believe yourself does not make something a lie.
the examples I gave illustrated that concept pretty well. Especially the second situation where a person may think their inaction makes them responsible for an action they did not commit. Now a polygraph may be able to detect a lie, but it can't tell if what it detects is a lie. It can only detect how the person perceives the question. The perception of the question makes it a lie no more then a Creationist who believes God created the world and everything in it in 6 days stating that biological evolutionary theory is correct makes Evolution a lie.
No, it wouldn't be a lie detector because the polygraph wouldn't know what the truth was, just how you perceived it when answering.
Imagine this, I tell you that all sheep are white. You think you have seen black sheep but can't remember when. You know you have heard of black sheep before but don't know if it's a reality or a figurative statement. Now I ask you a yes or no question, "are there any black sheep alive today". You answer no because you were told there was none. But you perceive that as questionable or even false because of your experience. The polygraph will detect your conflict- not which is true or not.
Now imagine this, suppose I accuse you of killing Mr X. You of course didn't do that, but you have read in the papers, watched on the news, and heard my accusations claiming that you did. Now the polygraph tech asks if you killed Mr X. You answer no, but there is a conflict. And since the results are subject to interpretation, they can say you lied, were likely truthful, were not entirely truthful, or inconclusive to that fact, but they cannot say that means you killed Mr X. Now add to that, a knowledge you might have had about Mr X being in danger because he told you he thought someone was trying to kill him the night before he died. You could completely fail the lie detector test because you might think that your inaction or inability to assist him allowed for his death to happen. It still doesn't mean you killed Mr X, it just means that you perceived some responsibility in his death.
Not really. I'm neither guilty nor innocent, I'm not even connected to a crime and I will refuse to take a polygraph test if ever asked- for any reason.
It's the same when a cop pulls you over and asks to search the car or something. I always default to no you may not. They usually reply with something about something to hide and I reply that if they knew that, they wouldn't need my permission to nibshit through my stuff. I then ask if I'm free to go. Of course they will not find anything if they look, but I'm more worried about them finding something that wasn't there before they looked. If they are honest, then it won't be a problem. If they are not honest, then it's a door to escape the issues at their hand.
It might be a different story is there was some trust surrounding the officers enforcing the laws, but a fe bad apples spoiled that a long time ago and continue to keep it rancid today. The problem is that you cannot tell which are the good cops and which are the bad cops and it's best to just not take chances. Especially when they want to search you or pin something on you that you had nothing to do with.
The pay scheme has been around since the mid 1970's or so and wasn't really a problem until after 2000 when the company invested into new machinery that realized more of a savings then they thought would. Before 2000 or so, the profit sharing was roughly 20% above base pay depending on a number of things. However, it has shot up ever since and is now more then 50% in some cases. They knew there was problems with it but couldn't really change it because the employees were getting used to the increase in pay. There isn't a union, this pay scheme was actually used to head one off. The idea was to take care of the employees based on them taking care of the company which got rid of most of the negative notions a union brings to the table. But the employees are tightly knitted and would form a union to strike if they thought it was necessary. They just found themselves in a no win situation and the company has been open with the books so the employees know their "profit sharing" isn't being pissed into some investment scheme. A local accounting firm audited the books about a year ago and published the interestingly- non interesting stuff in the papers. It seems it's just a slump in sales because of the economy.
Mexico is a very different place then where I'm used to. I ave heard the stories though. In Ohio (the USA), $35k is about average pay for non entry level- medium skilled- semi rural labor in a factory environment. It's not rich, but it is comfortable for most when they aren't used to the 40% more. It's hard to feel bad for them but the local papers run stories all the time about how the down turn caused someone to lose a house or how it's not the management's fault (it's the economies) so we have all the opportunity in the world to grab an opinion on it.
It wouldn't have to be that difficult. All MS would have to do is create a sub-shell like program that Firefox runs in. with this, they could intercept or manipulate anything- including using scripts or whatever to overlay boxes on the ui.
Think of it as the same principle that spyware and popups work/used to work. They installed a program that intercepted your internet sessions, vied them and injected their own ads or content in the replies. Even in some cases, they would recognize the competitions ads on a webpage and overlay their customers ad without the user knowing the difference (well, without knowing outside of degraded performance, pop-ups, and redirects to totally ansurd websites designed to get you to install more of their ad-ware).
Anyways, MS has the source code for windows. They have the interface to make this happen, they have the update mechanism to make it possible, and there really isn't anything we can do about it besides bitch if they decide to do it and we use MS products.
Wouldn't that cause issues with software updates by extensions in general? I mean often when wanted extensions and addons like Java or Flash are updated, they need to point the references to a new file name or version. If that can be done without accessing the encrypted DB, like through windows update or when another browser is open, then the entire point of the encrypted database is mooted because you can install anything by simple adding to the existing plugins.
Well, no. A private business can be a company and vice versa. You are thinking of incorporation which while similar and coming from the same roots, it legally different.
Now, I'm not going to get into what a corporation verses a non-incorporated business can do or not do. That wasn't the point. The point is that equable fairness would indicate that if you are capturing more of the profit then what is willingly surrendered (IE, base salary), then you will also incur the costs of losses.
BTW, when a company- incorporated or not, starts taking losses, what determines if it is bankrupt or not is the amount of leverage against it's assets and the ability to recover. So when a company has a year where they operate at a 5% loss (costs 5% more to operate then they took in), they are not just magically not paying or creating money from thin air. They are dipping into savings or taking loans out (with interest) using the company's assets as collateral. They are (the company) obligated to pay if they want to stay in business or avoid charges of malfeasance or misconduct. Being incorporated doesn't dissolve someone from liability or obligation, it separates liability and obligation they incur verses those outside of their control and allows what is outside of their control to be negated as far as the personal side is concerned.
That's nice and all, but there is a break even point where profits become nothing then losses incur. You can't inflate the value of your work and call it a loss just the same as the company cannot inflate the value of the car or TV or whatever, sell it for less then claim all the profits are lost. If the employees demand the profit, then they should be obligated to the loss- and not just metaphorically or by some reason of logic. I can say the value of my time is worth 10 million dollars an hour- therefore this reply has netted a loss of $200k.
Obviously, you haven't been paying attention to the news over the last couple of years. Yes, GM did keep people employed when their cars weren't selling, that's why the government ended up buying them out.
Anyways, laying people off isn't the same here. That's because the work isn't being done. If you expect part of the profits, then you need to expect part of the losses. And if part of the profits is conditioned on working, then the losses need to be too. Otherwise it's a broken argument that only serves to benefit one side.
Salary cuts across the board would only count as profit went down. If the company is running at a loss, then it's paying from savings and under the scheme where the employees are entitled to profits, they should also be obligated to losses.
We have companies in the US that do that same thing. It's called profit sharing and it's a bonus paid on the amount of profits the company makes. Generally, the sharing portion is increase for tenure rather then position and it's an excuse used to pay less on a base pay then what one might expect.
There is a company locally that does this very thing. When the economy went south, so did their profits. This took people making between $65k and $90k a year and dropped them to $35-40k a year salary depending on overtime(yes, salaried people at this plant get overtime). Roughly 2/3rd's of their employees are fighting something either in or about to be in repossession or foreclosure. This is big news around town as when the economy and business was good, they expanded to being one of the largest employers in town.
Of course this didn't effect me as I didn't-don't work there. But I know a lot of people who have and it's worse for them then getting fired and taking a lower paying job. It's like they are put in the poor house (I know, 35k is not exactly poor, but it's about a 40-60% cut or better for some which can make a well off person feel poor really quick), then expected to work their asses off. This is because they are still expected to perform the same at half the yearly compensation as they did when things were good.
I could agree with that concept only if the employee would also have to dip into their savings and pay for the losses the company sees during down turns.
If the concept is not bilateral, then it's broken and will cause too much harm.
Right now, as an employee, you have the option of working somewhere else if the pay isn't good enough for the job you are required to do. Basing pay expectations on profit or markup is the reason why the US government had to bail our GM and the banks. It leads to one sided overpayments with threats of making things worse in times of need for the company.
I think your babble-fish implant is acting up on you. Let me translate his post for you. You see, I think you have it set to babbling disgruntled idiot when it should be set to disgruntled outsourced idiot.
oh oh... my heart's starting to bleed... ok... wait... wait... ok it's better now. FUCK CHINA AND FUCK CHINESE WORKERS. FUCK FOXCONN EXECS, FUCK IBM EXECS...
This should really read,
I had a job with FOCCON once. I loved my job, I loved my employer, I loved what we produced. It was the greatest joy in my life outside of my wife and children. They moved my job to China in order to save some money. I was heart broken when this happened as well as financially ruined and had to file bankruptcy. Goons from credit collection agencies came to my home, they kicked my dog, slapped my wife, raped my computer, and made fun of the kids for wearing last years in style cloths, all before making a sandwich and spilling wine on the new carpet on their way out (yea, that stain will never go away).
I told them this move to China wasn't a good idea, but they needed to learn through example. I said see, you can't save more money in china, you should have stayed and continued to employ me so I would still have my boat at the marina.
Lol.. The bible is the Torah- extended version. Even the Torah has been extended over time. Neither are a specific book that is written but a collection of stories or books compiled together for your convenience. The part about this in which the Bible (or the Torah) is concerned would be proverbs (although similar sayings are in Ecclesiastes and Job) which is in the old testament. Most of Proverbs was written or recorded to have been said/coined during the reign of King Solomon Ca.970-930 B.C.12
Think of the bible/Torah more like a history book and less like a murder/mystery novel.
Parts of it does anyways. The New testament stuff doesn't unless it's referencing the old testament but then it's restated after the fact. I guess if you consider the bible as the modern compilation of scrolls into a book, then all of it was after Socrates (as well as many others). Socrates was 400 years older then Jesus but Jesus is only half the story. The first half can be traced back 2000 or more years before that.
Actually, he is asking for a CVS like feature. He's basically saying, I can do this with that, how do I do it here without rebuilding the server or taking it off line. In effect, he is asking for what he doesn't know about to make the thing work like he wants.
He's basically stating that some things could work but won't work because he either has too old of a system, or the wrong file system, or they aren't using the volume manager and changes in that regard are too much. So know he wants to know what's left that could achieve this goal.
However, the problem is that Nature is a leader in scientific publishing, so if they succeed in quadrupling their prices, many other scientific journals will do the same.
I'm not so sure that free market principles wouldn't jump in and sort of squash their leader position.
Think about this, they increase their price, UC school systems takes another journal and makes it home, the new home gets all of UC's published work, then they become one of the top as others schools attempt to mimic them.
Any other scientific journal could just as easily compete for this position. The buying power behind California's University system as well as the exposure to students who will be the next leaders using the materials, is huge. I think it may be so huge that UC has the power to basically appoint Nature's replacement as a leader in scientific publishing within 5-10 years.
You are 100% right. Because those pink elephants flying around the country (actually, they are Boeing 747s but hey, who needs to be accurate) using fossil fuels and contributing to global warming make so much sense. I'm betting your willing to stop riding the pink elephants because of all the pollution they cause.
Being factually correct doesn't just dictate how much outrage we should have (if any), it lends to the entire credibility of the comment/story or the person making such claims. If they can get something as simply as an increase in costs wrong, or even something more simple like commercial airliners, then the very real question of what else is wrong with the claim pops into play. Hell, I didn't RTFA, but how do we know that the increase isn't because of some steep discount over the last 10 years that is disappearing? Should we be outraged because UCLA is now paying bulk retail price instead of the discounted price of 1995?
Getting simple things right doesn't mean the rest is right (the inverse is true too), it just means that I can be bothered looking at the situation because it's not likely the result of some error like the one already presented in the article. That's why it's important to make sure your correct when attempting to attract attention to your cause.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. They can pack the pork on robotic missions as well. The key difference might be the amount of pork which can be piled on to a single project. But without the extras of manned flight, there is bound to be more projects so it will likely equal out.
Even so, keeping the goals and projects but extending the time line would continue getting the work done. I would prefer my tax dollars going to NASA for manned flight then some of the other places it goes.
Well, we decided that there might be another bank or car corporation that the US government wants to buy or just give money too. The citizens will bitch and moan about raising taxes so abandoning projects that millions have already been spent on just to reserve the other couple million for political capitol seems to be the going plan.
I don't think you understand. There will be no development in propulsion systems or energy or life support capable of carrying man because we have effectively seen manned flights ended. If the entire idea was simply scaled back to what you were saying, I don't think there would be much objection, but the problem is that this has essentially ended the concept so the development will not take place. Other agency might work on things they have no directive for or programs to use it with, but NASA has been very careful to get the most out of it's money in the past and will do so in the future. They won't work on things they aren't supposed to be doing.
And yes, Propulsion systems, energy system as well as life support systems get certified in different ways depending on if man is involved in the flight or not because of more stringent requirements for manned flights. This is so we can't make joke about lost crews like the one about the shuttle crew all having dandruff- their head and shoulders washed up on the beach.
Um yea, Can I go with him. I have a feeling it will be a lot better up there then what is to come down here.
Thank you, that's a better explanation then I gave. However, the definition of a lie does bring about the intent to deceive with it. Or at least is does in all the dictionaries I have seen.
I live in a county where the second to last sheriff got elected by declaring how corrupt the previous sheriff was and how straight and narrow he was going to be. This worked out good until the new sheriff was arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for corruption in office, embezzlement, and a few other charges that had to do with getting to buddy-buddy with the criminals in the area and abusing his power to either aid them or punish them. The current sheriff is from the same good ol'boys club as he was the lead deputy of the one who just got put in the slammer. It's unclear if he is corrupt or not as he was customarily next in line to replace the old sheriff if anything should happen to him in the line of duty. Interestingly, the investigation by the state into the old sheriff was started by a credible anonymous tip. How someone can determine the credibility of an anonymous person without knowing who he was is beyond me but the current sheriff was close enough to all the action to see what was happening.
But wait, it gets better, the current police department has lost two- not one but two chief of police in the last 15 years because of illegal actions ranging from embezzlement to guess what, corruption in office. One of them is serving time, the other worked out a deal where they resigned and all inquiries happened to be dropped. And if that isn't enough, I have personally been threatened by an officer in the lobby of the police department when attempting to file a complaint about another officer the night before who harassed me for no reason as I was entering a building to do some work. Well, the official story is that he had a reason, but only after 4 attempts to create something that would survive any scrutiny.
I know it's just a few of the law enforcement officers I need to worry about and it may be flawed logic, but I really do not give a shit. It's life and I live in it and I do not trust them. Your little branch of Mayberry R.F.D may not contain these elements but mine does.
So you would say that when a creationist who believes a God created everything in 6 days says evolution is real, that is a lie or that evolution is a lie? Of course not, that's because a lie involves an intent to deceive. Simply stating something that you have been told is true but do not believe yourself does not make something a lie.
the examples I gave illustrated that concept pretty well. Especially the second situation where a person may think their inaction makes them responsible for an action they did not commit. Now a polygraph may be able to detect a lie, but it can't tell if what it detects is a lie. It can only detect how the person perceives the question. The perception of the question makes it a lie no more then a Creationist who believes God created the world and everything in it in 6 days stating that biological evolutionary theory is correct makes Evolution a lie.
No, it wouldn't be a lie detector because the polygraph wouldn't know what the truth was, just how you perceived it when answering.
Imagine this, I tell you that all sheep are white. You think you have seen black sheep but can't remember when. You know you have heard of black sheep before but don't know if it's a reality or a figurative statement. Now I ask you a yes or no question, "are there any black sheep alive today". You answer no because you were told there was none. But you perceive that as questionable or even false because of your experience. The polygraph will detect your conflict- not which is true or not.
Now imagine this, suppose I accuse you of killing Mr X. You of course didn't do that, but you have read in the papers, watched on the news, and heard my accusations claiming that you did. Now the polygraph tech asks if you killed Mr X. You answer no, but there is a conflict. And since the results are subject to interpretation, they can say you lied, were likely truthful, were not entirely truthful, or inconclusive to that fact, but they cannot say that means you killed Mr X. Now add to that, a knowledge you might have had about Mr X being in danger because he told you he thought someone was trying to kill him the night before he died. You could completely fail the lie detector test because you might think that your inaction or inability to assist him allowed for his death to happen. It still doesn't mean you killed Mr X, it just means that you perceived some responsibility in his death.
Not really. I'm neither guilty nor innocent, I'm not even connected to a crime and I will refuse to take a polygraph test if ever asked- for any reason.
It's the same when a cop pulls you over and asks to search the car or something. I always default to no you may not. They usually reply with something about something to hide and I reply that if they knew that, they wouldn't need my permission to nibshit through my stuff. I then ask if I'm free to go. Of course they will not find anything if they look, but I'm more worried about them finding something that wasn't there before they looked. If they are honest, then it won't be a problem. If they are not honest, then it's a door to escape the issues at their hand.
It might be a different story is there was some trust surrounding the officers enforcing the laws, but a fe bad apples spoiled that a long time ago and continue to keep it rancid today. The problem is that you cannot tell which are the good cops and which are the bad cops and it's best to just not take chances. Especially when they want to search you or pin something on you that you had nothing to do with.
The pay scheme has been around since the mid 1970's or so and wasn't really a problem until after 2000 when the company invested into new machinery that realized more of a savings then they thought would. Before 2000 or so, the profit sharing was roughly 20% above base pay depending on a number of things. However, it has shot up ever since and is now more then 50% in some cases. They knew there was problems with it but couldn't really change it because the employees were getting used to the increase in pay. There isn't a union, this pay scheme was actually used to head one off. The idea was to take care of the employees based on them taking care of the company which got rid of most of the negative notions a union brings to the table. But the employees are tightly knitted and would form a union to strike if they thought it was necessary. They just found themselves in a no win situation and the company has been open with the books so the employees know their "profit sharing" isn't being pissed into some investment scheme. A local accounting firm audited the books about a year ago and published the interestingly- non interesting stuff in the papers. It seems it's just a slump in sales because of the economy.
Mexico is a very different place then where I'm used to. I ave heard the stories though. In Ohio (the USA), $35k is about average pay for non entry level- medium skilled- semi rural labor in a factory environment. It's not rich, but it is comfortable for most when they aren't used to the 40% more. It's hard to feel bad for them but the local papers run stories all the time about how the down turn caused someone to lose a house or how it's not the management's fault (it's the economies) so we have all the opportunity in the world to grab an opinion on it.
It wouldn't have to be that difficult. All MS would have to do is create a sub-shell like program that Firefox runs in. with this, they could intercept or manipulate anything- including using scripts or whatever to overlay boxes on the ui.
Think of it as the same principle that spyware and popups work/used to work. They installed a program that intercepted your internet sessions, vied them and injected their own ads or content in the replies. Even in some cases, they would recognize the competitions ads on a webpage and overlay their customers ad without the user knowing the difference (well, without knowing outside of degraded performance, pop-ups, and redirects to totally ansurd websites designed to get you to install more of their ad-ware).
Anyways, MS has the source code for windows. They have the interface to make this happen, they have the update mechanism to make it possible, and there really isn't anything we can do about it besides bitch if they decide to do it and we use MS products.
A more appropriate word might be preserve instead of cause.
Anyways, I do not see the problem with layoffs when the sales don't create the need for the labor. It's simply an issue of demand and meeting it.
Wouldn't that cause issues with software updates by extensions in general? I mean often when wanted extensions and addons like Java or Flash are updated, they need to point the references to a new file name or version. If that can be done without accessing the encrypted DB, like through windows update or when another browser is open, then the entire point of the encrypted database is mooted because you can install anything by simple adding to the existing plugins.
Well, no. A private business can be a company and vice versa. You are thinking of incorporation which while similar and coming from the same roots, it legally different.
Now, I'm not going to get into what a corporation verses a non-incorporated business can do or not do. That wasn't the point. The point is that equable fairness would indicate that if you are capturing more of the profit then what is willingly surrendered (IE, base salary), then you will also incur the costs of losses.
BTW, when a company- incorporated or not, starts taking losses, what determines if it is bankrupt or not is the amount of leverage against it's assets and the ability to recover. So when a company has a year where they operate at a 5% loss (costs 5% more to operate then they took in), they are not just magically not paying or creating money from thin air. They are dipping into savings or taking loans out (with interest) using the company's assets as collateral. They are (the company) obligated to pay if they want to stay in business or avoid charges of malfeasance or misconduct. Being incorporated doesn't dissolve someone from liability or obligation, it separates liability and obligation they incur verses those outside of their control and allows what is outside of their control to be negated as far as the personal side is concerned.
That's nice and all, but there is a break even point where profits become nothing then losses incur. You can't inflate the value of your work and call it a loss just the same as the company cannot inflate the value of the car or TV or whatever, sell it for less then claim all the profits are lost. If the employees demand the profit, then they should be obligated to the loss- and not just metaphorically or by some reason of logic. I can say the value of my time is worth 10 million dollars an hour- therefore this reply has netted a loss of $200k.
Yea, it sounds a little silly put that way.
Obviously, you haven't been paying attention to the news over the last couple of years. Yes, GM did keep people employed when their cars weren't selling, that's why the government ended up buying them out.
Anyways, laying people off isn't the same here. That's because the work isn't being done. If you expect part of the profits, then you need to expect part of the losses. And if part of the profits is conditioned on working, then the losses need to be too. Otherwise it's a broken argument that only serves to benefit one side.
Salary cuts across the board would only count as profit went down. If the company is running at a loss, then it's paying from savings and under the scheme where the employees are entitled to profits, they should also be obligated to losses.
We have companies in the US that do that same thing. It's called profit sharing and it's a bonus paid on the amount of profits the company makes. Generally, the sharing portion is increase for tenure rather then position and it's an excuse used to pay less on a base pay then what one might expect.
There is a company locally that does this very thing. When the economy went south, so did their profits. This took people making between $65k and $90k a year and dropped them to $35-40k a year salary depending on overtime(yes, salaried people at this plant get overtime). Roughly 2/3rd's of their employees are fighting something either in or about to be in repossession or foreclosure. This is big news around town as when the economy and business was good, they expanded to being one of the largest employers in town.
Of course this didn't effect me as I didn't-don't work there. But I know a lot of people who have and it's worse for them then getting fired and taking a lower paying job. It's like they are put in the poor house (I know, 35k is not exactly poor, but it's about a 40-60% cut or better for some which can make a well off person feel poor really quick), then expected to work their asses off. This is because they are still expected to perform the same at half the yearly compensation as they did when things were good.
I could agree with that concept only if the employee would also have to dip into their savings and pay for the losses the company sees during down turns.
If the concept is not bilateral, then it's broken and will cause too much harm.
Right now, as an employee, you have the option of working somewhere else if the pay isn't good enough for the job you are required to do. Basing pay expectations on profit or markup is the reason why the US government had to bail our GM and the banks. It leads to one sided overpayments with threats of making things worse in times of need for the company.
I think your babble-fish implant is acting up on you. Let me translate his post for you. You see, I think you have it set to babbling disgruntled idiot when it should be set to disgruntled outsourced idiot.
This should really read,
Lol.. The bible is the Torah- extended version. Even the Torah has been extended over time. Neither are a specific book that is written but a collection of stories or books compiled together for your convenience. The part about this in which the Bible (or the Torah) is concerned would be proverbs (although similar sayings are in Ecclesiastes and Job) which is in the old testament. Most of Proverbs was written or recorded to have been said/coined during the reign of King Solomon Ca.970-930 B.C.12
Think of the bible/Torah more like a history book and less like a murder/mystery novel.
Parts of it does anyways. The New testament stuff doesn't unless it's referencing the old testament but then it's restated after the fact. I guess if you consider the bible as the modern compilation of scrolls into a book, then all of it was after Socrates (as well as many others). Socrates was 400 years older then Jesus but Jesus is only half the story. The first half can be traced back 2000 or more years before that.
SVC or CVS?
Actually, he is asking for a CVS like feature. He's basically saying, I can do this with that, how do I do it here without rebuilding the server or taking it off line. In effect, he is asking for what he doesn't know about to make the thing work like he wants.
He's basically stating that some things could work but won't work because he either has too old of a system, or the wrong file system, or they aren't using the volume manager and changes in that regard are too much. So know he wants to know what's left that could achieve this goal.
I'm not so sure that free market principles wouldn't jump in and sort of squash their leader position.
Think about this, they increase their price, UC school systems takes another journal and makes it home, the new home gets all of UC's published work, then they become one of the top as others schools attempt to mimic them.
Any other scientific journal could just as easily compete for this position. The buying power behind California's University system as well as the exposure to students who will be the next leaders using the materials, is huge. I think it may be so huge that UC has the power to basically appoint Nature's replacement as a leader in scientific publishing within 5-10 years.
You are 100% right. Because those pink elephants flying around the country (actually, they are Boeing 747s but hey, who needs to be accurate) using fossil fuels and contributing to global warming make so much sense. I'm betting your willing to stop riding the pink elephants because of all the pollution they cause.
Being factually correct doesn't just dictate how much outrage we should have (if any), it lends to the entire credibility of the comment/story or the person making such claims. If they can get something as simply as an increase in costs wrong, or even something more simple like commercial airliners, then the very real question of what else is wrong with the claim pops into play. Hell, I didn't RTFA, but how do we know that the increase isn't because of some steep discount over the last 10 years that is disappearing? Should we be outraged because UCLA is now paying bulk retail price instead of the discounted price of 1995?
Getting simple things right doesn't mean the rest is right (the inverse is true too), it just means that I can be bothered looking at the situation because it's not likely the result of some error like the one already presented in the article. That's why it's important to make sure your correct when attempting to attract attention to your cause.