Please get with the times. Tim Hortons no longer bakes anything fresh - it's all half-baked-then-frozen and shipped from their central plant in Barrie, ON., and tastes like crap. This was done both to increase the head office profits and to keep franchisees from making larger-than-standard donuts to out-compete other franchisees in the same area.
In other words, just go to your local supermarket and buy a box of donut holes for half the price for twice as many - it's going to be just as bad, but you're not getting quite so badly ripped off.
Benefit corporations and Certified B Corporations are often, and understandably, confused. Both are sometimes called B Corps. They share much in common and have a few important differences. Certified B Corporation is a certification conferred by the nonprofit B Lab. Benefit corporation is a legal status administered by the state. Benefit corporations do NOT need to be certified. Certified B Corporations have been certified as having met a high standard of overall social and environmental performance, and as a result have access to a portfolio of services and support from B Lab that benefit corporations do not.
Again, no citation of any actual law that says that a corporation is - as you claimed - he is BOUND BY LAW which is clearly spelled out in almost every corporate charter to do anything he can, screw anybody he has to, to get as much money as he can."
The existence of B corporations is not proof of what you said. Show a single law that says that a corporation is bound by law to do everything possible to make a profit.
You can't, because there is no such law.
The existence of shareholder lawsuits is irrelevant. Anyone can sue for anything.
So, either provide proof that "he is BOUND BY LAW which is clearly spelled out in almost every corporate charter to do anything he can, screw anybody he has to, to get as much money as he can" or admit that no such law exists, and that you bought into all the corporate dogma of the last decade.
After all, if it's "clearly spelled out in almost every corporate charter", you should be able to come up with a few examples.
The article tosses out opinions with nothing to back them up; essentially all he is saying
Wrong on two counts.
1. The author is a she.
2. There are plenty of cases cited where companies cut work hours and the increase in productivity more than made up for the shorter hours.
Did you even read the article, or just skim it here and there?
he is BOUND BY LAW which is clearly spelled out in almost every corporate charter
That's a false statement - one that you apparently have swallowed from those same right-wing propagandists. I've challenged this before, and nobody has yet to provide a citation, because there is no such law on the books anywhere.
No, this is false. It costs a lot of money to hire and keep a person at work. Around here, it's calculated at 100 to 120k average, counting *everything* about keeping the person here.
So there's more leverage to push back with because every person who either burns out or quits costs them an immediate $100k out of pocket while they find a replacement and get them up to speed - only to repeat the cycle.
He left out the actual means used to do this - unionization.
First, "he" is a she.
Second, if unionization is what it takes, what's the problem? People in IT too buffaloed by their bosses to even say the word "union"?
Third, you don't need a union to present the facts to your boss. And if the boss doesn't accept the facts, to do as the author suggests - take it directly to the shareholders and show them how their investment is being so badly mis-managed by working people to the point where the mistakes and lowered productivity are costing more than working a regular 40-hour week would.
There was way more than one study... while the first is over 100 years old, every decade after, there were more reductions in hours and more productivity increases and/or reductions in other costs (reduced accidents, reduced mistakes, etc.), right up to the 60s.
Also, one thing hasn't changed - people are still people.
So file for divorce, change the door locks, and put her stuff outside in garbage bags. First to file isn't just for patents...
Right now you're the one responsible for allowing yourself to continue to be miserable, you're getting a really jaundiced view of all women, and one day you're going to come home to find the locks ae changed and your stuff is outside in garbage bags.
Then get on with your life as best you can, and maybe when you've "decompressed" (sort of like after a death march), you might find that you're in a better frame of mind to attract someone who won't make you miserable.
Psychiatry/psychology, to help all the people who feel that this sort of thing actually makes their lives relevant somehow (generally the same types of people who measure their self-worth by the numbe of "friends" they have on facebook or other anti-social media.
And what to do about the people who think putting down others somehow makes their lives relevant?
Using Facebook is the online equivalent of staring at yourself in the mirror, according to a study.
Those who spent more time updating their profile on the social networking site were more likely to be narcissists, said researchers.
Facebook provides an ideal setting for narcissists to monitor their appearance and how many âfriendsâ(TM) they have, the study said, as it allows them to thrive on âshallowâ(TM) relationships while avoiding genuine warmth and empathy.
The findings, published in the journal Cyberpsychology, Behaviour And Social Networking, also suggested that those with low self-esteem also checked their Facebook pages more regularly than normal.
This may not be altogether surprising as it is widely thought, however contradictory it may appear, that narcissism is linked to a deep-rooted lack of self-esteem.
A study earlier this week showed that the grades of students who use Facebook while they study, even if it is only on in the background, are 20 per cent lower on average than those of non-users.
Methinks thou doth protest too much:-) In other words, your defense of facebook probably indicates that you are insecure, vain, and have a low opinion of yourself.
How is being social and interacting with people "stupid"?
One of the points of the study is that people used facebook as a poor substitute for "being social and interacting with people." It's real name should be "anti-social networking for losers."
Psychiatry/psychology, to help all the people who feel that this sort of thing actually makes their lives relevant somehow (generally the same types of people who measure their self-worth by the numbe of "friends" they have on facebook or other anti-social media.
The drug companies, to sell them drugs so that they won't feel so bad about being so into something so stupid in the first place.
How much will the person spend on the barrel and welding supplies? What you said is that you know that the tank idea is cheaper, so I'm curious if you'll please share the results of the price investigation you did.
$15 a drum.
You don't need any welding. Just store the gas (or diesel) in the individual drums. The hose is under $10. So really, for almost anyone the 55-gallon tank idea is cheaper.
Unless it's like Canada, where the vehicles have plates on the front and back
Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Nunavut, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Saskatchewan, and the Yukon only have 1 plate - on the rear. Only British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, and Ontario require 2 plates.
I down-rated this in the firehose - it's all guesswork. I know "pull numbers out of your rectum and get page hits from slashdot, because slashdot is the new Mikey - they'll post anything!"
The free alternatives are not generating anything near the revenue that their predecessors were. So there's a problem with sustainability there - one which Canonical is having a serious problem with. One which killed the old Novell (opensuse), and which still leaves Suse dependent on yet another 4-year "microsoft certificate" program for $100 million to 2015. Is that your definition of success?
In the consumer space, the free desktops can't compete with 10-year-old xp. Is that your definition of success?
That sounds pretty darned illegal. They benefited during the training period as well - but that's not my point... only the military can get away with that sort of "join us and we'll pay for your career training in return for $X number of years service."
People keep claiming that this is a sort of "ju-jitsu move" against copyright - it's not, because the GPL is now easy enough to work around thanks to clarification in copyright laws over the last couple of decades. For example, there's nothing in the GPL to prevent you from creating an unmodified binary from source, then using a custom loader to load and patch that binary in ram (as per the Constitution, copyright only applies to computer works when they are saved in a fixed format - and the courts have ruled that ram doesn't count as a "fixed format":-) and not make the source for your loader/patcher available. Alternatively, you can just load only the portions of the binary you actually need in your own closed-source program (no - this is not dynamic linking, just "pretty darn close without going over the line":-).
In other words, the GPL, rather than putting conditions on code that ensures sharing, is now toothless.
30 seconds of thought will tell you that open source or closed source makes no difference to non-technical people. They will pay or not pay for support in accordance with the size of their wallets, their desperation, or the phase of the moon --- the fact that something may be open source is of next to zero practical interest when source code might as well be hieroglyphics,
On the contrary, because it's open, there is no one central "point of contact", so there's really no realistic options for consumers.
If support is so great, why did Novell end up getting taken over for next to nothing? Why is Mandrake/Mandriva going bankrupt for a second time? Why is slackware dead (the update repository has been broken for almost a year)? Why did Caldera mutate into The SCO Group? Why is Canonical throwing anything and everything at the wall to see of something will stick?
He's a hypocrite. He has no problem with people violating others copyrights (see here)
RMS: Napster is bad because it is proprietary software, but I see nothing unethical in the job it does. Why shouldn't you send a copy of some music to a friend? I don't play music from files on my computer, but I've occasionally made tapes of records and given them to my friends.
... but he has a problem with people violating the GPL. "Do as I say, not as I do..." Not that Stallman matters any more - he's mostly a laughing stock and the punch-line of jokes nowadays. His Steve Jobs comments made him look more a loser (and more of a crack-head) than Charlie Sheen.
It is not hard to get money for supported software though. People and companies will pay for stuff that they can install easily and has a number for someone to call when it breaks.
No they won't. That model was broken even back in the shareware days. People are cheap.
Have I learned, you bet I have. My software packages today are commercial only with no source code available. It's a matter of survival at this point - gotta take care of number one first.
And this is going to be a growing trend. The open source model only works for some software, and it may have already peaked. The "we'll sell support" model doesn't work - if it's so broken that it needs continual support, people would rather pay $X and get something that "just works." This applies just as much to commercial software as it does to consumer stuff like games.
It's why you'll never see a "year of the linux desktop". It's why companies like Adobe are not going to continue to waste resources on linux. It's why developers are making a billion a month in the Apple Market, and next to nothing with Android (Android is just too fragmented).
It's not popular to say it, but free software (using the FSFdefintion), in terms of market share, is actually declining. Free in too many cases is just to expensive, both to the end user and to the developer.
Slashdot Mirror
Please get with the times. Tim Hortons no longer bakes anything fresh - it's all half-baked-then-frozen and shipped from their central plant in Barrie, ON., and tastes like crap. This was done both to increase the head office profits and to keep franchisees from making larger-than-standard donuts to out-compete other franchisees in the same area.
In other words, just go to your local supermarket and buy a box of donut holes for half the price for twice as many - it's going to be just as bad, but you're not getting quite so badly ripped off.
See the difference?
Again, no citation of any actual law that says that a corporation is - as you claimed - he is BOUND BY LAW which is clearly spelled out in almost every corporate charter to do anything he can, screw anybody he has to, to get as much money as he can."
The existence of B corporations is not proof of what you said. Show a single law that says that a corporation is bound by law to do everything possible to make a profit.
You can't, because there is no such law.
The existence of shareholder lawsuits is irrelevant. Anyone can sue for anything.
So, either provide proof that "he is BOUND BY LAW which is clearly spelled out in almost every corporate charter to do anything he can, screw anybody he has to, to get as much money as he can" or admit that no such law exists, and that you bought into all the corporate dogma of the last decade.
After all, if it's "clearly spelled out in almost every corporate charter", you should be able to come up with a few examples.
Again, you fail, like eveyone else, to provide a citation any actual law. Just hand waving/
Wrong on two counts.
1. The author is a she.
2. There are plenty of cases cited where companies cut work hours and the increase in productivity more than made up for the shorter hours.
Did you even read the article, or just skim it here and there?
That's a false statement - one that you apparently have swallowed from those same right-wing propagandists. I've challenged this before, and nobody has yet to provide a citation, because there is no such law on the books anywhere.
adjusted per capita income has actually dropped since 1973.. And that's before you factor in the 2x increase in productivity in those 39 years ...
So there's more leverage to push back with because every person who either burns out or quits costs them an immediate $100k out of pocket while they find a replacement and get them up to speed - only to repeat the cycle.
First, "he" is a she.
Second, if unionization is what it takes, what's the problem? People in IT too buffaloed by their bosses to even say the word "union"?
Third, you don't need a union to present the facts to your boss. And if the boss doesn't accept the facts, to do as the author suggests - take it directly to the shareholders and show them how their investment is being so badly mis-managed by working people to the point where the mistakes and lowered productivity are costing more than working a regular 40-hour week would.
Also, one thing hasn't changed - people are still people.
Right now you're the one responsible for allowing yourself to continue to be miserable, you're getting a really jaundiced view of all women, and one day you're going to come home to find the locks ae changed and your stuff is outside in garbage bags.
Then get on with your life as best you can, and maybe when you've "decompressed" (sort of like after a death march), you might find that you're in a better frame of mind to attract someone who won't make you miserable.
I guess you missed the study that showed that facebook users are insecure, narcissistic, and have low self-esteem.
Methinks thou doth protest too much:-) In other words, your defense of facebook probably indicates that you are insecure, vain, and have a low opinion of yourself.
One of the points of the study is that people used facebook as a poor substitute for "being social and interacting with people." It's real name should be "anti-social networking for losers."
Of course, semis end up with the plate on the front instead of the back.
Psychiatry/psychology, to help all the people who feel that this sort of thing actually makes their lives relevant somehow (generally the same types of people who measure their self-worth by the numbe of "friends" they have on facebook or other anti-social media.
The drug companies, to sell them drugs so that they won't feel so bad about being so into something so stupid in the first place.
$15 a drum.
You don't need any welding. Just store the gas (or diesel) in the individual drums. The hose is under $10. So really, for almost anyone the 55-gallon tank idea is cheaper.
Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Nunavut, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Saskatchewan, and the Yukon only have 1 plate - on the rear. Only British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, and Ontario require 2 plates.
I down-rated this in the firehose - it's all guesswork. I know "pull numbers out of your rectum and get page hits from slashdot, because slashdot is the new Mikey - they'll post anything!"
The free alternatives are not generating anything near the revenue that their predecessors were. So there's a problem with sustainability there - one which Canonical is having a serious problem with. One which killed the old Novell (opensuse), and which still leaves Suse dependent on yet another 4-year "microsoft certificate" program for $100 million to 2015. Is that your definition of success?
In the consumer space, the free desktops can't compete with 10-year-old xp. Is that your definition of success?
Without revenue, products stagnate.
That sounds pretty darned illegal. They benefited during the training period as well - but that's not my point ... only the military can get away with that sort of "join us and we'll pay for your career training in return for $X number of years service."
People keep claiming that this is a sort of "ju-jitsu move" against copyright - it's not, because the GPL is now easy enough to work around thanks to clarification in copyright laws over the last couple of decades. For example, there's nothing in the GPL to prevent you from creating an unmodified binary from source, then using a custom loader to load and patch that binary in ram (as per the Constitution, copyright only applies to computer works when they are saved in a fixed format - and the courts have ruled that ram doesn't count as a "fixed format" :-) and not make the source for your loader/patcher available. Alternatively, you can just load only the portions of the binary you actually need in your own closed-source program (no - this is not dynamic linking, just "pretty darn close without going over the line" :-).
In other words, the GPL, rather than putting conditions on code that ensures sharing, is now toothless.
How many consumer sales have they had in the last decade? Zero?
On the contrary, because it's open, there is no one central "point of contact", so there's really no realistic options for consumers.
If support is so great, why did Novell end up getting taken over for next to nothing? Why is Mandrake/Mandriva going bankrupt for a second time? Why is slackware dead (the update repository has been broken for almost a year)? Why did Caldera mutate into The SCO Group? Why is Canonical throwing anything and everything at the wall to see of something will stick?
He's a hypocrite. He has no problem with people violating others copyrights (see here)
No they won't. That model was broken even back in the shareware days. People are cheap.
And this is going to be a growing trend. The open source model only works for some software, and it may have already peaked. The "we'll sell support" model doesn't work - if it's so broken that it needs continual support, people would rather pay $X and get something that "just works." This applies just as much to commercial software as it does to consumer stuff like games.
It's why you'll never see a "year of the linux desktop". It's why companies like Adobe are not going to continue to waste resources on linux. It's why developers are making a billion a month in the Apple Market, and next to nothing with Android (Android is just too fragmented).
It's not popular to say it, but free software (using the FSFdefintion), in terms of market share, is actually declining. Free in too many cases is just to expensive, both to the end user and to the developer.