Oh, I see, you want to go to Guantanamo for vacation too? I hear they offer free unlimited stays. And some kind of surf boarding class called "water boarding". Should be fun.
Is it really a robot if it doesn't fulfill a practical purpose? Robot is derived from a word meaning "slave" because it does work in place of a person. If it is unable to do work, by conjoining AI with mobility, does it really fit the bill? What makes a windmill not a robot? What makes a drill not a robot?
Real adblock that stops unnecessary downloads makes more performance difference at this point, than any sort of rendering engine chances. It has the nice side effect of limiting how much tracking of you goes on too.
Because it's taking company funds without proper due diligence. If it's an approved practice, then it goes on the books. If it's not, then its embezzlement. How is the company supposed to know they didn't take any for personal reasons?
While what you say might be technically correct, it also misses the real issue by a country mile.
Not where I'm sitting. The employer can and does put all sorts of unreasonable restrictions in contracts it forms with employees, but unions cannot do the same thing on behalf of employees. It's about screwing employees.
Duh, that was the point of that statement. Thank you for pointing out that entirely true fact.
2. Whether or not employees can be forced to join a union is not the only variable affecting income levels. Because you have not isolated that variable, your statement is meaningless.
Cheers!
Ah, but if you look at the link I've posted elsewhere in this thread, methodological tactics to isolate the phenomenon from other factors, like location and industry, enhance it's apparent effect by several percent.
No, what right to work says is that unions can't form private contracts about the terms of hiring employees. In union shop states, all that's different is that certain kinds of contractual stipulations are legal if agreed to by both parties.
Right to work is still fundamentally a revocation of rights.
How about the real question, since companies are ephemeral entities with no real way to measure their "americanness." Why have we inserted pointless middlemen of contracting companies into our government's process of managing itself. The fact is that it's an internal project, and having developers working for the government wouldn't really cost us much more. We've yoked ourselves to the wagon of privatization, without really caring what that means. I'm not entirely convinced of the value of having entire industries built around providing workers to the government when the government can damn well hire its own employees.
I think they'll become likable again when all their google-money dries up, and the corporate types start bailing, and it becomes a hobby maintained technology again.
It may be dollars in name, but, in fact, it is only the representation of dollars. It costs money to get it turned into actual dollars.
Hmm, where does this money come from? Certainly not scrip, or that wouldn't really count. I'm not really defending this, because these corporations should burn for eternity for offloading fees onto their employees. But it's not the same.
Seriously, Detroit isn't a state, and right-to-work West Virginia lost the same quantity of coal-related jobs when the U.S. de-industrialized a bit over the last decades. There are multiple factors in play, which makes cherry picking easy, and people in union allowing states are better off on average.
A bit more detail on just how dramatic the difference in wages is, and yes, there is a rising tide effect where non-union employees earn more in a union state: Not just an opinion
And yet unemployment rates don't seem to reflect that as a core relationship. Maybe because when companies go out of business, the space is available for competition again anyways.
No, I don't think it is, because it is actually US dollars held by a FDIC financial institution. The case you can make is that it's a violation of contract to pay effectively lower wages by payment processing fees being taken from the worker's side instead of the employer's. Of course, these employees probably all signed contracts that prohibit class action lawsuits(thanks supreme court!), and individual suits are more expensive than the recuperated costs.... so... basically fuck you.
Except if you compare private sector wages in right-to-work vs. collective bargaining states. GDP per capita differences are all over the place, but in states that don't engage in union busting, wages are higher.
The GP was saying that no third party should be involved. Those who host on $50/year do so by colocating and subdividing servers, so as to reduce IT expense.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I see, you want to go to Guantanamo for vacation too? I hear they offer free unlimited stays. And some kind of surf boarding class called "water boarding". Should be fun.
It'll be fun when we slaughter a political dissenter who was forced to flee to a south American country on July 4. So much freedom!
Maybe we should use an axe to kill him. That won't, in any way, draw parallels to anything else that happened in history.
Is it really a robot if it doesn't fulfill a practical purpose? Robot is derived from a word meaning "slave" because it does work in place of a person. If it is unable to do work, by conjoining AI with mobility, does it really fit the bill? What makes a windmill not a robot? What makes a drill not a robot?
Android: sure, robot: I'm not convinced.
Those ads got me to end my live subscription and stop buying games.
Our hearts are the first critical thing to go, more often than anything. It's like a metaphor, really.
Real adblock that stops unnecessary downloads makes more performance difference at this point, than any sort of rendering engine chances. It has the nice side effect of limiting how much tracking of you goes on too.
Evidence says otherwise: Hard to refute numbers
I cannot pretend that's true. Point to a statute that requires a union.
Because it's taking company funds without proper due diligence. If it's an approved practice, then it goes on the books. If it's not, then its embezzlement. How is the company supposed to know they didn't take any for personal reasons?
While what you say might be technically correct, it also misses the real issue by a country mile.
Not where I'm sitting. The employer can and does put all sorts of unreasonable restrictions in contracts it forms with employees, but unions cannot do the same thing on behalf of employees. It's about screwing employees.
1. GDP per capita is not the same as income
Duh, that was the point of that statement. Thank you for pointing out that entirely true fact.
2. Whether or not employees can be forced to join a union is not the only variable affecting income levels. Because you have not isolated that variable, your statement is meaningless.
Cheers!
Ah, but if you look at the link I've posted elsewhere in this thread, methodological tactics to isolate the phenomenon from other factors, like location and industry, enhance it's apparent effect by several percent.
So... your objects are poorly considered.
But, like most problems, if technology can solve it for you, why wouldn't you use it?
Yes, but it was the reason he was going to lose his job.
Yes. I know it's wrong to do that. I was contesting the false equivalence to worthless company scrip.
No, what right to work says is that unions can't form private contracts about the terms of hiring employees. In union shop states, all that's different is that certain kinds of contractual stipulations are legal if agreed to by both parties.
Right to work is still fundamentally a revocation of rights.
How about the real question, since companies are ephemeral entities with no real way to measure their "americanness." Why have we inserted pointless middlemen of contracting companies into our government's process of managing itself. The fact is that it's an internal project, and having developers working for the government wouldn't really cost us much more. We've yoked ourselves to the wagon of privatization, without really caring what that means. I'm not entirely convinced of the value of having entire industries built around providing workers to the government when the government can damn well hire its own employees.
I think they'll become likable again when all their google-money dries up, and the corporate types start bailing, and it becomes a hobby maintained technology again.
It may be dollars in name, but, in fact, it is only the representation of dollars. It costs money to get it turned into actual dollars.
Hmm, where does this money come from? Certainly not scrip, or that wouldn't really count. I'm not really defending this, because these corporations should burn for eternity for offloading fees onto their employees. But it's not the same.
in states that don't engage in unions...wages are higher
I also fixed that for you.
Unions only live by sucking funds from workers, remember.
Oops, it looks like you posted the opposite of reality. Would you like help writing a letter?
Seriously, Detroit isn't a state, and right-to-work West Virginia lost the same quantity of coal-related jobs when the U.S. de-industrialized a bit over the last decades. There are multiple factors in play, which makes cherry picking easy, and people in union allowing states are better off on average.
A bit more detail on just how dramatic the difference in wages is, and yes, there is a rising tide effect where non-union employees earn more in a union state: Not just an opinion
And yet unemployment rates don't seem to reflect that as a core relationship. Maybe because when companies go out of business, the space is available for competition again anyways.
No, I don't think it is, because it is actually US dollars held by a FDIC financial institution. The case you can make is that it's a violation of contract to pay effectively lower wages by payment processing fees being taken from the worker's side instead of the employer's. Of course, these employees probably all signed contracts that prohibit class action lawsuits(thanks supreme court!), and individual suits are more expensive than the recuperated costs.... so... basically fuck you.
Union won't cover embezzlement? Oh deary me, how cruel.
Except if you compare private sector wages in right-to-work vs. collective bargaining states. GDP per capita differences are all over the place, but in states that don't engage in union busting, wages are higher.
The GP was saying that no third party should be involved. Those who host on $50/year do so by colocating and subdividing servers, so as to reduce IT expense.