Problems like ridiculous hours were solved a hundred years ago by the introduction of unions in other industries.
Introducing new problems, such as your slacker co-worker making as much as you, doing half as much. And, my favorite, "You can't push that cart here, this is a union-only place. (Me) OK, where can I find someone to push it. (Them) They're on break. Come back in an hour."
Because there's a competetive advantage to not paying your employees what they're worth
Due to this flaw in your logic, the rest of your argument is moot.
SOME companies may feel it is an advantage to screw their employees, but it normally comes back to haunt them. For example, they get sued. (Ahem.)
MANY companies, like the one I've chosen to work for, understand that if you have good employees, you treat them well, and they will produce for you. This is also a competitive advantage.
No, a trailer is a preview for an upcoming movie. It is called a trailer because it used to trail the movies. Then the marketing guys came in and said, "Hey, more people will watch these movie ads if we stick them at the FRONT of the movie!"
However, I do believe mopisode is stupid sounding and probably/hopefully won't catch on.
No. Even if they are left leaning, there is a reason for them to change the poll numbers to suit Bush: Otherwise their exit poll data would look inaccurate, due to the mismatch with the election result. After two well publicized failures in a row, people would stop paying attention to their inaccurate exit polls.
Using this logic, the other networks would be all over this "story" like flies on shit. Making your competitors look bad is good for business. Why aren't we seeing that? Why aren't we seeing inquiries and stories from Kerry's camp?
But conventional wisdom also says: "They would never rig the voting machines - despite the many ruthless things a side has engaged in, including faking evidence for war and voter suppression, and despite highly partisan hacks running the elections in OH and FL, rigging the vote tabulating machines themselves is just beyond imagination."
Interesting point if that stuff had actually happened.
1. No one FAKED anything to go to war. 2. No one suppressed voters. 3. Highly partisan hacks run every election in every state. This is what happens when you have FUCKING POLITICIANS running elections. Duh.
Why is it that you are so proud of the popular vote THIS time? Everywhere I go I hear about this supposed couple of percent "mandate". Four years ago you definitely played a different tune when the popular vote was mentioned. Opportunists.
Well I'm a libertarian, so I don't really give a shit which one of the two major douchebags running actually won. I do, however, enjoy pissing off Democrats by pointing out the popular vote, since they were so convinced Bush was in office illegitimately.
CNN is trying to help Bush cover the unlikely discrepancy!
This is stupid on so many levels.
CNN is notoriously left-leaning. Even if you believe they are central, I defy anyone to explain to me why the fuck CNN would change numbers to suit Bush. It is pure insanity.
Let's apply Occam's Razor.
Perhaps the exit polling sucked balls? Perhaps the numbers they were showing were not correct and they updated them with the correct data? Perhaps the early voters were Democrats and the later voters were Republican.
All of these ideas are simpler and more believable than CNN changing exit poll numbers to help Bush cover up a stolen election while NBC/CBS/ABC decide not to report on such a thing. Ummm, yeah.
While I was listening to the election returns being discussed on CNN, NBC, etc, the one thing I heard repeatedly from the Bush camp in the early part of the evening was that the exit polling was skewed, and counting women and minorities proportionally high.
To me, it sounds like the same lefties that cried "stolen election" in 2000 are trying to find a way to claim this election even after Bush won it by 3.5 million.
So what you're saying is, because you can't take advantage of your personal freedom in the United States, to work for any company or start your own, you had to go to a place where the government controls how much you're ALLOWED to work?
We in america are "free" to work as long as we can. Our employers are also "free" to make that a requirement of employment. Isn't it great in the land of the "free".
Yes, since you are free not to work for that company. You are free to start your own company that has a saner work schedule for your employees. You are free to scalp employees from EA that are sick of working those long hours.
Isn't there some sort of government body in the US that regulates stuff like this??
None needed. It is a free market.
Is this even legal to let people work for 12 hours every day ??
Thankfully, yes, the government hasn't decided to try to control every aspect of my life yet. With people like you out there voting, though, who knows.
If my company here tried that, they would have a big fat lawsuit slapped on 'm before they could twist their nipples
I'm sorry to hear that. See, the truth is, the employees of EA could quit and work elsewhere. When EA starts losing too many good people, their practices will change, or their company will suffer. When potential employees start hearing more stories like the one this person posted, their recruitment will drop.
This is how change is affected in a free market. Not by the government, but by the people involved.
What is more interesting to me is why aren't search engines work the other way around. Why do we need a robot.txt file to tell the robots to sod off, when anyone can come up with a new spider overnight.
I think it would be more appropriate to have the robots.txt file with invitations, so that the spiders would always check first and if they are welcome, only then they would crawl this site.
That is what they do. If you don't want to let any spiders crawl your site, you can say:
User-agent: * Disallow:/
If you want something fancier, you could have robots.txt served up by a program. But the features of robots.txt suffice for most.
Rebate or no, a sales tax simply won't scale up so that the rich are paying a decent share.
Please define "a decent share." The rich pay way more than anyone else in taxes right now. They will continue to pay way more than anyone else with a national sales tax system because they spend way more than anyone else. Since "the rich" are also the nation's source of job-producing companies and investments in the stock market and banks (giving you equity in your retirement account and low-interest loans), perhaps you ought not to try and extract every fucking cent from them? They pay way more than you do in taxes, and will continue to do so under the fairtax.
Similarly, everyone else will pay far less in taxes under the national sales tax. Yet it is revenue neutral with the income taxes now. If you don't understand why, then perhaps you ought to read more about the FairTax.
There's no reason why consumption rather than actual income should be the metric for the amount one gets taxed
There's no reason income rather than consumption should be the metric for the amount one gets taxed.
that's only a fraction of your income you're getting taxed on
Rich people spend more money and thus pay more taxes either way. The system will collect the same amount of money for the government, but will save money for everyone across the board. (How? Because you are eliminating the waste of the IRS and income tax system.)
calling it some all-one-word double-capitalized name makes it sound like you're advertizing it.
That's good, because I AM advertising it. FairTax is not the only national sales tax idea, it is a specific one and therefore has a distinguishable name that you can use to refer to it.
It is the best tax plan I've heard of, and that they've named it something memorable and accurate means it has a good shot of being branded into the minds of the people that hear about it.
Let it stand on its merits, or lack thereof.
This is the stupidest fucking statement I've read in a while. I am really trying to understand the point of it. My signature links to a shitload of data about FairTax, which you have taken absolutely no time to read before opening your mouth and, instead of asking questions, assuming the wrong thing and making yourself look stupid. Yet you are trying to tell me to let something stand on its merits?
IT DOES.
I have no problem with people that don't understand the national sales tax idea and want more info, but have no patience for morons that won't educate themselves about it and instead try to tout the most assassanine tax collection system ever concocted... US federal income taxes.
Progressive income tax? Way to fuck over everyone but the poor.
Why don't you do what my signature says, and educate yourself before you look like a moron. (Too late.) The FairTax does not fuck over any economic class, due to the monthly rebate that covers any tax paid on subsistence items. The FairTax, as its name implies, is fairer than both the current income taxes and the proposed flat taxes.
The *real* ironic twist to the story is that newer versions of McAfee VirusScan that Dell has been shipping requires Internet Explorer to be installed... and uses it to run the control center windows.
I think I am missing something. Are you saying there are normally Windows versions of Dell machines that come without IE?
As a fellow grammar Nazi, let me explain that the person you're responding to meant Firefox lacks security issues COMPARED TO INTERNET EXPLORER.
It's like saying a program lacks features. Obviously you don't mean it has no features -- just that it lacks features, WHEN COMPARED TO ANOTHER PRODUCT.
Are you kidding? An uninformed vote is a terrible vote.
Surveys say only 1/10 18 year olds voted.
Surveys say an even smaller percentage of 18 year olds understand the issues they are voting on.
Funny since they will be the first ones drafted.
Yes, in the extremely highly unlikely chance their is a draft, they will be the first ones drafted. Then they can decide to dodge it like Clinton or Bush did, use it for future campaign fodder like Kerry did, embarass the USA like those in Abu Ghraib did, or make the USA proud as almost everyone else has.
Be very careful if you're going to be setting up shooting blades around your stack of porn. If there's any chance you forget to deactivate it when you're "in the mood", with all the blood out of your brain, you may accidentally "disable" yourself from ever using your porn again.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't care if someone is paid $10/hr or $45/hr, they still have rights, and those rights include decent, respectful working practices.
They have the right not to work for that employer.
Conversely, if someone wants to choose to do a job for 80 hours a week and make a lot of money at it, they should have that right also.
This is why government intervention reduces your freedom in the interest of becoming your nanny.
Problems like ridiculous hours were solved a hundred years ago by the introduction of unions in other industries.
Introducing new problems, such as your slacker co-worker making as much as you, doing half as much. And, my favorite, "You can't push that cart here, this is a union-only place. (Me) OK, where can I find someone to push it. (Them) They're on break. Come back in an hour."
Yee-haw.
Because there's a competetive advantage to not paying your employees what they're worth
Due to this flaw in your logic, the rest of your argument is moot.
SOME companies may feel it is an advantage to screw their employees, but it normally comes back to haunt them. For example, they get sued. (Ahem.)
MANY companies, like the one I've chosen to work for, understand that if you have good employees, you treat them well, and they will produce for you. This is also a competitive advantage.
No, a trailer is a preview for an upcoming movie. It is called a trailer because it used to trail the movies. Then the marketing guys came in and said, "Hey, more people will watch these movie ads if we stick them at the FRONT of the movie!"
However, I do believe mopisode is stupid sounding and probably/hopefully won't catch on.
No. Even if they are left leaning, there is a reason for them to change the poll numbers to suit Bush: Otherwise their exit poll data would look inaccurate, due to the mismatch with the election result. After two well publicized failures in a row, people would stop paying attention to their inaccurate exit polls.
Using this logic, the other networks would be all over this "story" like flies on shit. Making your competitors look bad is good for business. Why aren't we seeing that? Why aren't we seeing inquiries and stories from Kerry's camp?
But conventional wisdom also says: "They would never rig the voting machines - despite the many ruthless things a side has engaged in, including faking evidence for war and voter suppression, and despite highly partisan hacks running the elections in OH and FL, rigging the vote tabulating machines themselves is just beyond imagination."
Interesting point if that stuff had actually happened.
1. No one FAKED anything to go to war.
2. No one suppressed voters.
3. Highly partisan hacks run every election in every state. This is what happens when you have FUCKING POLITICIANS running elections. Duh.
For accuracy, if you use the formerly general political terms, qualify the situation they are used in.
Sorry, I thought it was obvious since we are talking about CNN's exit polls of the UNITED STATES ELECTIONS.
Why is it that you are so proud of the popular vote THIS time? Everywhere I go I hear about this supposed couple of percent "mandate". Four years ago you definitely played a different tune when the popular vote was mentioned. Opportunists.
Well I'm a libertarian, so I don't really give a shit which one of the two major douchebags running actually won. I do, however, enjoy pissing off Democrats by pointing out the popular vote, since they were so convinced Bush was in office illegitimately.
XP is unusable on 1024x768
So turn off the special theming and you're left with, essentially, Win2K theme.
CNN is trying to help Bush cover the unlikely discrepancy!
This is stupid on so many levels.
CNN is notoriously left-leaning. Even if you believe they are central, I defy anyone to explain to me why the fuck CNN would change numbers to suit Bush. It is pure insanity.
Let's apply Occam's Razor.
Perhaps the exit polling sucked balls? Perhaps the numbers they were showing were not correct and they updated them with the correct data? Perhaps the early voters were Democrats and the later voters were Republican.
All of these ideas are simpler and more believable than CNN changing exit poll numbers to help Bush cover up a stolen election while NBC/CBS/ABC decide not to report on such a thing. Ummm, yeah.
While I was listening to the election returns being discussed on CNN, NBC, etc, the one thing I heard repeatedly from the Bush camp in the early part of the evening was that the exit polling was skewed, and counting women and minorities proportionally high.
To me, it sounds like the same lefties that cried "stolen election" in 2000 are trying to find a way to claim this election even after Bush won it by 3.5 million.
Also, to be blunt. Miners are unskilled and therefore have few options for other gainful employment. (I'll let you decide who's fault that is.)
A programmer is a skilled worker, and if they are good, they can find work anywhere.
The only people I've ever known that prefer unions are:
- Those that are lazy, unproductive, or incompetent, and need unions to level the playing field for them.
- Those brainwashed about unions by their family and friends, or who stumbled into a unionized field and have grown complacent.
Unions are the enemy of talented and productive people that understand you don't need a union, just the freedom to do whatever you want.
So what you're saying is, because you can't take advantage of your personal freedom in the United States, to work for any company or start your own, you had to go to a place where the government controls how much you're ALLOWED to work?
Did I get that right?
We in america are "free" to work as long as we can. Our employers are also "free" to make that a requirement of employment. Isn't it great in the land of the "free".
Yes, since you are free not to work for that company. You are free to start your own company that has a saner work schedule for your employees. You are free to scalp employees from EA that are sick of working those long hours.
Freedom doesn't make life easier, just freer.
Isn't there some sort of government body in the US that regulates stuff like this??
None needed. It is a free market.
Is this even legal to let people work for 12 hours every day ??
Thankfully, yes, the government hasn't decided to try to control every aspect of my life yet. With people like you out there voting, though, who knows.
If my company here tried that, they would have a big fat lawsuit slapped on 'm before they could twist their nipples
I'm sorry to hear that. See, the truth is, the employees of EA could quit and work elsewhere. When EA starts losing too many good people, their practices will change, or their company will suffer. When potential employees start hearing more stories like the one this person posted, their recruitment will drop.
This is how change is affected in a free market. Not by the government, but by the people involved.
What is more interesting to me is why aren't search engines work the other way around. Why do we need a robot.txt file to tell the robots to sod off, when anyone can come up with a new spider overnight.
/
I think it would be more appropriate to have the robots.txt file with invitations, so that the spiders would always check first and if they are welcome, only then they would crawl this site.
That is what they do. If you don't want to let any spiders crawl your site, you can say:
User-agent: *
Disallow:
If you want something fancier, you could have robots.txt served up by a program. But the features of robots.txt suffice for most.
Rebate or no, a sales tax simply won't scale up so that the rich are paying a decent share.
Please define "a decent share." The rich pay way more than anyone else in taxes right now. They will continue to pay way more than anyone else with a national sales tax system because they spend way more than anyone else. Since "the rich" are also the nation's source of job-producing companies and investments in the stock market and banks (giving you equity in your retirement account and low-interest loans), perhaps you ought not to try and extract every fucking cent from them? They pay way more than you do in taxes, and will continue to do so under the fairtax.
Similarly, everyone else will pay far less in taxes under the national sales tax. Yet it is revenue neutral with the income taxes now. If you don't understand why, then perhaps you ought to read more about the FairTax.
There's no reason why consumption rather than actual income should be the metric for the amount one gets taxed
There's no reason income rather than consumption should be the metric for the amount one gets taxed.
that's only a fraction of your income you're getting taxed on
Rich people spend more money and thus pay more taxes either way. The system will collect the same amount of money for the government, but will save money for everyone across the board. (How? Because you are eliminating the waste of the IRS and income tax system.)
calling it some all-one-word double-capitalized name makes it sound like you're advertizing it.
That's good, because I AM advertising it. FairTax is not the only national sales tax idea, it is a specific one and therefore has a distinguishable name that you can use to refer to it.
It is the best tax plan I've heard of, and that they've named it something memorable and accurate means it has a good shot of being branded into the minds of the people that hear about it.
Let it stand on its merits, or lack thereof.
This is the stupidest fucking statement I've read in a while. I am really trying to understand the point of it. My signature links to a shitload of data about FairTax, which you have taken absolutely no time to read before opening your mouth and, instead of asking questions, assuming the wrong thing and making yourself look stupid. Yet you are trying to tell me to let something stand on its merits?
IT DOES.
I have no problem with people that don't understand the national sales tax idea and want more info, but have no patience for morons that won't educate themselves about it and instead try to tout the most assassanine tax collection system ever concocted... US federal income taxes.
Because I knew it wasn't exactly right, but I wanted to mess with you anyway.
;-)
;-)
The true sign of a Grammar Nazi... always afraid of other, better informed Grammar Nazis.
BTW, I didn't write the "dweeb" comment.
I figured.
Progressive income tax? Way to fuck over everyone but the poor.
Why don't you do what my signature says, and educate yourself before you look like a moron. (Too late.) The FairTax does not fuck over any economic class, due to the monthly rebate that covers any tax paid on subsistence items. The FairTax, as its name implies, is fairer than both the current income taxes and the proposed flat taxes.
$1.05
Thank you! I learned something today.
:-)
Why did you respond anonymously? I befriend all Grammar Nazis.
The *real* ironic twist to the story is that newer versions of McAfee VirusScan that Dell has been shipping requires Internet Explorer to be installed... and uses it to run the control center windows.
I think I am missing something. Are you saying there are normally Windows versions of Dell machines that come without IE?
Didn't think so.
As a fellow grammar Nazi, let me explain that the person you're responding to meant Firefox lacks security issues COMPARED TO INTERNET EXPLORER.
It's like saying a program lacks features. Obviously you don't mean it has no features -- just that it lacks features, WHEN COMPARED TO ANOTHER PRODUCT.
There is no such thing as a bad vote.
Are you kidding? An uninformed vote is a terrible vote.
Surveys say only 1/10 18 year olds voted.
Surveys say an even smaller percentage of 18 year olds understand the issues they are voting on.
Funny since they will be the first ones drafted.
Yes, in the extremely highly unlikely chance their is a draft, they will be the first ones drafted. Then they can decide to dodge it like Clinton or Bush did, use it for future campaign fodder like Kerry did, embarass the USA like those in Abu Ghraib did, or make the USA proud as almost everyone else has.
Be very careful if you're going to be setting up shooting blades around your stack of porn. If there's any chance you forget to deactivate it when you're "in the mood", with all the blood out of your brain, you may accidentally "disable" yourself from ever using your porn again.
Darwin Award.