If company X paid 7 cents more an hour after the training, and the new forklift driver could see that the guy he replaced was trained to run the cherry picker with a raise above his grade level, he wouldn't leave for the 10 cents that company Y offered when his buddy at company Y has been bitching about how he has been at company Y for 8 years, and they still won't give him a raise or let him drive the forklift.
Of course, that is all moot, since you started off with "Company X trains warehouse TEMPS. No one is suggesting that companies train temps. They are suggesting that companies hire employees, and train them instead of turning everyone into a temp.
That is only a problem when the employer wants to continue paying the untrained wage to the trained employee. Most people don't like to make lateral moves. Most people won't move from a good environment with a company that trains them for just a few % points. Employers like to make the excuse that they don't train because people will leave, but that only flies if they also have the expectation that the training is the ONLY compensation the employee will get. If the only compensation the employee will get is the training, why would they care. The employee wants to improve so that they can earn more. Training AND money need to be part of the compensation package.
There are plenty workers that both want job stability, and have shown it over time. These workers are shunned by the industry. That puts the loyalty ball in the employers court.
If it was fear of employees leaving, older workers with a long history with a single employer would be considered a plus. Since that is not the case, we can conclude that "job hopping" is not the issue.
No, it doesn't. It means that people are moving to jobs that don't use those skills because the entire industry pays too little. Companies trying to hire skilled IT workers are not just competing against other for employees. They are competing against every other industry out there as well.
Speaking of the OZ books, when I finally got around to reading them, I was surprised at just how big of assholes all of the characters were. Not one of them was likeable. Some parents might not like the subject matter of things like how cool it is for children to wonder off with the first street vagrant that passes by as well.
Those books were written in a different time, and people's sensibilities have changed since then. Kind of like how offensive Tom Sawyer would be to a lot of parents today. I'm not saying that kids shouldn't read them. Just that a parent should be aware of what they giving their kids so that they can decide if it is appropriate for their kids. Mine, I would let read the books, but I would be aware of what it was he was reading.
If watching the movies is seeing Peter Jackson's imagination at work, then reading the books is seeing Tolkien's. While basic reading skills are important in life, the idea that books are somehow 'better' as entertainment is simply BS. If you wanted you kid to use his imagination, you should have had him write his own book instead of reading someone else's and taking credit for the authors imagination.
Honestly, TLOTR made better movies than books. While the story was pretty good, and certainly formed the foundation for modern fantasy, the writing itself was atrocious.
Your dad's problem was that he was improperly using reverse psychology. If he really wanted you to like them, he should have forbid you from watching them. When you came in the room, he should have faux hurriedly shut them off. He should have told you that you were too immature to handle the content. Then when you were thoroughly hooked, he should have slowly reeled you in by letting you watch just a little bit.
My kid could read within a couple of months of turning 3 using this technique. Any movies or TV shows I would like to share with him, I go into a different room and watch. When he comes in, I pause it. 99% of the time he will ask what it is, and I will fluff it off as something he wouldn't like. It works like a charm.
I am not a do-it-yourselfer when it comes to repairing cars. I am however aware of just how many mechanics will rip you off, and on more than one occasion caught a mechanic breaking things so that they can later fix it. I want access to my error codes so that when I can know that the engine light came on because the gas cap is loose or a fuse blew out before I get to the mechanic who tells me that the on board computer needs replacing at $1000.
It isn't even induction. It is more of a pun. With induction, all the words continue to mean the same thing. In this case, a different word is being used that just happens to be a homonym. A better Slashdot car example would be: My car is a Mustang. Kicking a horse is animal crualty. Therefore kicking the tires of my car is animal crualty.
The difference in the two examples is that in your induction example, Bentley always means the same Bentley, Trabant always means the same Trabant, and no car always means the same no car. Whereas the pun example, Mustang does not always mean the same Mustang.
It is in English. At least that is what is being taught to every one of our children in the public school system, and has been for at least the last 40 years.
I explain how people's logic is flawed by misuse of an overloaded word, and you try to tell me I'm wrong by example of using bad logic via confusion of the overloaded word.
"The sky is green." is a fact when using the word fact in the fact vs. opinion form. "The sky is green" is not a fact when used in the fact vs. fiction form.
This is no different than the "free as in beer" vs. "free as in speech" confusion.
BS. There may have been SOME that didn't consider land to be property, but the term 'Native American' makes about as much sense as saying "Asians", "Africans", or "Europeans", and trying to declare a common world view. There were plenty of guns fired to maintain control of land from all sides to allow the claim that "Native Americans" didn't consider land to be 'property'. It isn't even a good fiction.
As soon as you make a song that is not a derivative of other people's creative work, I will agree with you. No doubt it would be both the best song ever written, and contain the power to drive anyone hearing it into madness as their mind tries to come to grips with concepts and sounds that no human has ever been faced with before.
So, until this Lovecraftian song of madness appears, copyright isn't a question of right/wrong, morals or ethics. It is an attempt at a pragmatic solution to the problem of getting people to improve on what is already there. Claiming the song is "Yours" and that anyone copying it is doing something wrong is basically a claim that "It is wrong for anyone to rob you of what you properly stole".
The ethics of 'IP piracy', software or otherwise is that 100% of the works under copyright are derivative of someone else's creative work. Thus 100% of all works under copyright is pulled from a poisoned well. There are no ethics concerning copyright. Copyright is strictly a pragmatic system that attempts to generate new, hopefully improved, derivative works.
Thus, asking for the ethics of software piracy is as loaded as asking if you still beat your wife.
Except for the moral argument that the copyright 'stole' ideas from other people's creations. 100% of all works under copyright are pulled from a tainted well. Thus, there is no ethical or moral argument FOR copyright at the personal level. The only argument for copyright is to support the functioning and improvement of society.
Thus, the moral standing of copyright is highly debatable. I say, tax it as real property. Let the 'owners' declare it's value every year on their taxes. If it gets 'pirated', let them sue for that value being 'stolen'. This would still leave the profit motive to generate new 'IP', while encouraging 'owners' to accurately declare the 'IP's worth. Too high, and they are paying unnecessary taxes. Too low, and anybody can copy with impunity. Plus. New tax stream!
I would be much more in favor of copyright if the 'artists' didn't build their work on other people's 'Intellectual Property'. Of course, If we want to call it property, then lets just tax it as real property. Let the 'owner' declare the properties worth. If they declare that a single copy is worth 10 million dollars, fine. They can pay taxes on that 10 million dollars. If they declare it to be worth $1, then that is how much they can sue for when it gets copied.
If they are required to pay taxes on the 'property' every year, you will see a lot more of it make it to the public domain.
To be fair it wasn't Windows98 that the Amiga matched. It was closer to Windows95, and even then it was a little behind. The day before Windows95 came out, the Amiga was well ahead of it's peers. The day Win95 hit the streets, it was a little behind. Of course, at the end of the day, I am quibbling over whether Amiga was 10 years ahead or 13 years ahead of the rest of the industry.
They didn't as if the OS was better, but if there was anything about it that was better. I would say that DataTypes was an awesome feature that is still not in modern OSes, and we would all be better off if it was.
Slashdot Mirror
If company X paid 7 cents more an hour after the training, and the new forklift driver could see that the guy he replaced was trained to run the cherry picker with a raise above his grade level, he wouldn't leave for the 10 cents that company Y offered when his buddy at company Y has been bitching about how he has been at company Y for 8 years, and they still won't give him a raise or let him drive the forklift.
Of course, that is all moot, since you started off with "Company X trains warehouse TEMPS. No one is suggesting that companies train temps. They are suggesting that companies hire employees, and train them instead of turning everyone into a temp.
That is only a problem when the employer wants to continue paying the untrained wage to the trained employee. Most people don't like to make lateral moves. Most people won't move from a good environment with a company that trains them for just a few % points. Employers like to make the excuse that they don't train because people will leave, but that only flies if they also have the expectation that the training is the ONLY compensation the employee will get. If the only compensation the employee will get is the training, why would they care. The employee wants to improve so that they can earn more. Training AND money need to be part of the compensation package.
There are plenty workers that both want job stability, and have shown it over time. These workers are shunned by the industry. That puts the loyalty ball in the employers court.
If it was fear of employees leaving, older workers with a long history with a single employer would be considered a plus. Since that is not the case, we can conclude that "job hopping" is not the issue.
No, it doesn't. It means that people are moving to jobs that don't use those skills because the entire industry pays too little. Companies trying to hire skilled IT workers are not just competing against other for employees. They are competing against every other industry out there as well.
Under all of those situations, her leaving you for it would indicate she was a whore. As in prostitute.
If you think that books leave more to the imagination, you don't have one. How does infinity - 1 work out mathematically. Is it really less?
If you don't like camp, you don't like Star Trek. Every Star Trek show and movie released has been campy. Yes, even DS9.
Speaking of the OZ books, when I finally got around to reading them, I was surprised at just how big of assholes all of the characters were. Not one of them was likeable. Some parents might not like the subject matter of things like how cool it is for children to wonder off with the first street vagrant that passes by as well.
Those books were written in a different time, and people's sensibilities have changed since then. Kind of like how offensive Tom Sawyer would be to a lot of parents today. I'm not saying that kids shouldn't read them. Just that a parent should be aware of what they giving their kids so that they can decide if it is appropriate for their kids. Mine, I would let read the books, but I would be aware of what it was he was reading.
If watching the movies is seeing Peter Jackson's imagination at work, then reading the books is seeing Tolkien's. While basic reading skills are important in life, the idea that books are somehow 'better' as entertainment is simply BS. If you wanted you kid to use his imagination, you should have had him write his own book instead of reading someone else's and taking credit for the authors imagination.
Honestly, TLOTR made better movies than books. While the story was pretty good, and certainly formed the foundation for modern fantasy, the writing itself was atrocious.
Tolkein really wasn't a very good writer. Good at coming up with stories, but not a good writer. He was far too obsessed with minutia.
Your dad's problem was that he was improperly using reverse psychology. If he really wanted you to like them, he should have forbid you from watching them. When you came in the room, he should have faux hurriedly shut them off. He should have told you that you were too immature to handle the content. Then when you were thoroughly hooked, he should have slowly reeled you in by letting you watch just a little bit.
My kid could read within a couple of months of turning 3 using this technique. Any movies or TV shows I would like to share with him, I go into a different room and watch. When he comes in, I pause it. 99% of the time he will ask what it is, and I will fluff it off as something he wouldn't like. It works like a charm.
and I guess do-it-yourself people
I am not a do-it-yourselfer when it comes to repairing cars. I am however aware of just how many mechanics will rip you off, and on more than one occasion caught a mechanic breaking things so that they can later fix it. I want access to my error codes so that when I can know that the engine light came on because the gas cap is loose or a fuse blew out before I get to the mechanic who tells me that the on board computer needs replacing at $1000.
True. It is pretty sad that they are still handled in such a limited fashion.
Specifically Turtle LOGO running on a Lego Turing machine.
You know, I take that back. It is just traditionally, in induction, the shift of meaning is so much more subtle that it seems like a different animal.
It isn't even induction. It is more of a pun. With induction, all the words continue to mean the same thing. In this case, a different word is being used that just happens to be a homonym. A better Slashdot car example would be: My car is a Mustang. Kicking a horse is animal crualty. Therefore kicking the tires of my car is animal crualty.
The difference in the two examples is that in your induction example, Bentley always means the same Bentley, Trabant always means the same Trabant, and no car always means the same no car. Whereas the pun example, Mustang does not always mean the same Mustang.
It is in English. At least that is what is being taught to every one of our children in the public school system, and has been for at least the last 40 years.
I explain how people's logic is flawed by misuse of an overloaded word, and you try to tell me I'm wrong by example of using bad logic via confusion of the overloaded word.
"The sky is green." is a fact when using the word fact in the fact vs. opinion form. "The sky is green" is not a fact when used in the fact vs. fiction form.
This is no different than the "free as in beer" vs. "free as in speech" confusion.
BS. There may have been SOME that didn't consider land to be property, but the term 'Native American' makes about as much sense as saying "Asians", "Africans", or "Europeans", and trying to declare a common world view. There were plenty of guns fired to maintain control of land from all sides to allow the claim that "Native Americans" didn't consider land to be 'property'. It isn't even a good fiction.
As soon as you make a song that is not a derivative of other people's creative work, I will agree with you. No doubt it would be both the best song ever written, and contain the power to drive anyone hearing it into madness as their mind tries to come to grips with concepts and sounds that no human has ever been faced with before.
So, until this Lovecraftian song of madness appears, copyright isn't a question of right/wrong, morals or ethics. It is an attempt at a pragmatic solution to the problem of getting people to improve on what is already there. Claiming the song is "Yours" and that anyone copying it is doing something wrong is basically a claim that "It is wrong for anyone to rob you of what you properly stole".
The ethics of 'IP piracy', software or otherwise is that 100% of the works under copyright are derivative of someone else's creative work. Thus 100% of all works under copyright is pulled from a poisoned well. There are no ethics concerning copyright. Copyright is strictly a pragmatic system that attempts to generate new, hopefully improved, derivative works.
Thus, asking for the ethics of software piracy is as loaded as asking if you still beat your wife.
Except for the moral argument that the copyright 'stole' ideas from other people's creations. 100% of all works under copyright are pulled from a tainted well. Thus, there is no ethical or moral argument FOR copyright at the personal level. The only argument for copyright is to support the functioning and improvement of society.
Thus, the moral standing of copyright is highly debatable. I say, tax it as real property. Let the 'owners' declare it's value every year on their taxes. If it gets 'pirated', let them sue for that value being 'stolen'. This would still leave the profit motive to generate new 'IP', while encouraging 'owners' to accurately declare the 'IP's worth. Too high, and they are paying unnecessary taxes. Too low, and anybody can copy with impunity. Plus. New tax stream!
I would be much more in favor of copyright if the 'artists' didn't build their work on other people's 'Intellectual Property'. Of course, If we want to call it property, then lets just tax it as real property. Let the 'owner' declare the properties worth. If they declare that a single copy is worth 10 million dollars, fine. They can pay taxes on that 10 million dollars. If they declare it to be worth $1, then that is how much they can sue for when it gets copied.
If they are required to pay taxes on the 'property' every year, you will see a lot more of it make it to the public domain.
To be fair it wasn't Windows98 that the Amiga matched. It was closer to Windows95, and even then it was a little behind. The day before Windows95 came out, the Amiga was well ahead of it's peers. The day Win95 hit the streets, it was a little behind. Of course, at the end of the day, I am quibbling over whether Amiga was 10 years ahead or 13 years ahead of the rest of the industry.
They didn't as if the OS was better, but if there was anything about it that was better. I would say that DataTypes was an awesome feature that is still not in modern OSes, and we would all be better off if it was.