I think that was the number we were given when our smallish (1200 people) company was bought out by a big (~7000 people) company. They said they were commitied to making it work, and for the first year it looked that way. Then things went downhill. Slowly management got worse as people left or got transfered. Eventially good talent was brought in, but by then it was too late, the new CEO 6 years latter didn't care about us, and 7 years latter only about 10 people have a job from the old company (some hired after the marger)
To be fair, the new CEO made the right decision, the merger failed, and could not be rescued. The problem was the salespeople had no interest in selling our products, so we had plenty of great products that nobody was buying. The merger failed because one of the benifits (the big company's salespeople had better contacts in industry, and there were mote of them) didn't work out.
In other words, even if everything seems brought now, keep yoru resume up to date, the things that make a merger fail are the same as any engeriing product: management or sales. I've seen many cases of a baddly engineered product doing well, while the compitition that is better built fails in the market.
Sure your residential sprinkler sounds good on paper. However they require quite a bit of water. In a city it is (in theory) no big deal to put a bigger pipe into all houses just to supply the sprinklers. However I have my own well, to provide for a sprinkler means I have to have a bigger pump, which costs significantly more money. The power for that pump comes from the main panel (through other boxes latter) in my utility room, right next to the most likely places a fire would start (dryer, furnance, water heater), once the sprinkler goes off the panel shorts out and before the first is out I've lost power to the well (breaker blows), not to mention water in the main box, before the main breaker.
Now look at the cost of a fire. Even a small one confined to the utility room will mean your house is unlivable for weeks or months. (smoke damage means at minimum you replace the carpet and paint everything likely more). If a residential house starts on fire you are best off, and it could be cheaper for the insurance company, if you grab the pictures (heirlooms) and then burn it to the ground, protecting the neighbors. A house is a house, people can live anywhere. Better to get out of a burning house, and then move elsewhere.
I assume there is a normal buisness phone in some office somewhere. Just put a sign outside it that says office, and people who really need it will walk in and ask to use the phone - let them. Tell the ushers that it isn't encouraged, but those who need a phone can use the office phone.
Odds are you have a first aid station somewhere already, just give them a phone (they should have it for 911 calls anyway) and they can serve phone duty too. Just make sure long distance isn't allowed, which should be cheaper than a pay phone.
P.S. Do you have tdd access phones? I'm sure they are expensive, but I know a few deaf people and I like to remind people of their special needs. It wouldn't hurt you to have one in an office somewhere.
They already exist. I've seen devices (don't recall where, try google) that will plug into a cell phone (not all models, buy the device and the cell phone at the same time to be sure they are compatable) and allow you to plug a normal phone into them. ie your mickey mouse phone.
I have also seen cell phone based pay phones. Not many because they cost something like a buck a minute. (It was in an area where the nearest phone line was over a mile away, a wilderness outfitters) They exist, ask your cell providers if they know anything about them.
I'm not a medical expert, but IIRC human ears have the ability to hear selected frequences well above the normal range. You might be able to hear everything from 20hz-14,600hz, and a few selected frequences up to 30,000hz, but others inbetween are inaudiable. The ones you can hear depend on your particular ear.
I think I understand how to explain it better, but it is late. Besides, I'd prefer those who care to do their own research to verify it, while the rest think "That's interesting I won't if it is true" than to take me as some expert.
I'd argue that he ment that programs have to function, and a comptuer is the ultimate test of a computers functionality. A poor mathamatition can make a few mistakes that get lost in complex details, and it could take years for his peers to find the mistakes.
Say for example there is a flaw in the proof of Fermets's last theorm. It is still well accepted, and it seems to fit, but somewhere some detail is wrong. I personally don't have the ability to find it, and few of those reading this do. Compare that to a comptuer program where you can run it, and play with it. You can soon convince yourself that it mostly works or doesn't. Of course there can still be bugs in the program that hide for years, but a large subset of potential bugs will not pass the first test on a real computer.
IIRC When computers finially became powerful enough to run the first programs (written by the likes of Alan Turning, Ada Lovelace) several bugs were found in them despite being much simpler than modern programs and reviewed by many peers.
Of course you could argue that this checking makes programing easier because you don't have to be smart enough to find your mistakes, only smart enough to figgure out where they are once you know what it is.
I don't buy thta because coffee drinkers like their coffee hot. The complain when it isn't.
I worked at McDonalds at the time, in reaction to the result I (At the time it was my personal job to make sure all tempatures were in spec, checking weekly, my boss said go with the lower limit on coffee so I did) turned our coffee tempature down to the lowest setting, (140 degrees f) and got complaints about the quality of the coffee after that. Eventially we turned to the upper end of the range acceptable (160-165 IIRC - what is was before), and the complaints stoped.
Personally I can't stand coffee, but most who like it like it hot, and they will complain if it isn't. Those who don't like it hot know enough to order ice with it, which several people did.
Thats always my objection to vote receipts. If I take my receipt and put it in a box, then I can verify my vote on the paper, and if there is any question I make them count the entire box.
If someone claims that the election results are wrong and trys to punish me for my vote I can claim that I voted as instructed, it was someone else. Since it is a seceret ballot, there is no way to prove otherwise.
Just because Nixon was a bad guy doens't make Clinton not a bad guy. Both subverted the law and got away with it!
Perjury, lieing under oath is a crime, and should be. If he didn't want to say anything, then he should have either pleaded the fifth (I'm not sure if he could, does that apply in a civil case?), had his lawyer object, or told the truth, and then appealed the decision as made partially on a question that he should not have had to answer. Lieing is NOT forgivable. Doesn't matter if it is your political party of the other party, you should not allow your leader to get away with it or any other crime.
I'll grant that who the president sleeps with is a private matter, so long as it is discreetly done between consenting adults. However someone claimed sexual harrasement, and once that happens other things are often brought to light that otherwise we wouldn't care about.
Still, IMHO Clinton was a bad president Claiming credit for ecconomic cycles that he can't control. (and so on), but that he would have been a bad president even if he hadn't lied under oath. By lieing under oath though he was IMO no longer fit to serve. Nixon at least resigned - eventially.
Florida is known for corruption, no arguement there.
However it is possibal to run a fair electoin even when biased. Not easy mind you, but you can do it. I don't know florida very well, but I know in most states the democrats and republicans jointly run the elections (I'd accuse them on collusion to prevent thrid parties more than eliminate each other just because they can work togather on that). I know people who are called in as election judges every election because they are the only republicans in an otherwise democratic area. Everyone recignises the importance of being fair and tries for it. I assume Florida does this, which should negate any idea that the leader is unfair just because she is biased.
All the recounts I'm aware of in Florida have shown that Bush would have won no matter what. (Unless you statisticly count Bucannan voters for Gore, but while that might be the intent, it might not be, and the vote was clear if wrong) Therefore any court decision should not change the outcome.
I'm really tired of hearing about this. You don't like Bush? Woop dee doo, I didn't like Clinton. I got over it long before either of his terms where up. Part of our form of goverment means that you will not always have a representative that you like. Deal with it.
You get used to the keyboard on laptops. Don't forget that you can plug one in at your desk. I know of some companies that standerdised on laptops, with a fullsize keyboard, mouse, and monitor on every desk. For support personel that have to travel once in a while it is a good solution. It isn't a big deal to plug and unplug 4 cables every day. (Power, monitor, keyboard, and mouse. The latter can be combined today into a usb hub)
Sound is nice, but hardly required on a buisness laptop. At least for most buisness purposes sound is better left off. For personal use (games, mp3), that is a different story. I know people who purchased high priced PCMCIA sound cards for their laptop. For most of us that is overkill. Again, it isn't that big a deal to add one more cable to the list of those to plug in every morning once you have a routine. If you even need sound.
What upgrades? I rarely upgrade my desktop computer. With USB, and firewire most upgrades are easy, you buy an external drive, and when you travel you choose what you need to take with you. Or you install wireless (802.11) and connect to a server. Obviously that doesn't cover everything (video), but it covers most of what you need.
Mind you I'm not saying a laptop is perfect for everyone. They are a nice solution to several real problems. I have a perfectly good desktop myself, so I'm thinking about a laptop for the times when I don't want to be at my desk. I can use the latop in my backyard, on the couch, at my parents house, and so on.
Sure the artical makes it sound like a bad decision. However remembver that each person is different, and will react differently to any given drug. So one person dies. Lets assume that it is directly caused by the drug (as opposed to coincidence). If a million other people will be helped, and one person dies, that is very good odds. If I'm one person that could be helped by that drug, then I want it on the market.
Note that the drug company should keep track of these cases, if they find a lot of deaths from the drug then they should pull it. However eventially you need to draw a line and say "Since we don't have a perfect ability to figgure out how any given person will respond, we need to draw a line and accept a few losses." Doesn't mean it isn't a tragity to the person who dies, but it is a risk we need to take.
Note that I'm assuming proper FDA approval was gone through. If they cheated and someone dies, then you have a case. If they did everything right, and the drug worked with few, perdictable, side effects, then it should be on the market. Any one person who dies because of it is a sad loss, but something we must accept. Again, it doesn't lessen the loss to those who knew the person who's body reacted differently, and I feel sorry for them. We can't hold back others (who could die without the treatment) because of one death.
sorry, but the courts had nothing to do with who was elected. They enforced the rules that already existed. By ever re-count after the election Bush won. (Even if someone ment to vote for Gore, which seems appearant, and they did not, and we cannot change someone's vote because it might have been intended for someone else) Bush won all the Florida recounts. By US law, majority does not rule in presidential elections, the smaller states (which florida is not one) get a larger count to help prevent large states from trompeling on small states.
Before the election Gore expect to win, in a similear way to Bush: win electoral votes, but not the majority. He said he would not resign in Bush's favor should that happen. Would your complaint be just as loud had he won? Most current complainers would be happy with that situation. (though I expect a few republicans would complain)
Looking at the major choices in the last presidential election I'm glad I voted for a third party canidate. Honestly, I don't think either Gore or Bush are good presidents.
Back when I was in high school, they were all proud of their up to date computer lab where students learned WordPerfect 5.1 (which just came out IIRC) for dos, the same system industry is using Here were are 10 years latter and wordPerfect is all but dead in industry, and Word is number one. However my last job required I know and use FrameMaker for all my official documents. (Word was avaiable, and used for some documents, but the official ones I created had to be done in Frame)
The point is that I don't know what will be number one in 10 years. Perhaps kWord will completely take over MSWord by then. It shows promise already, and free is a good arguement. (OpenOffice, StarOffice, AbiWord all come to mind as potential compititors, and WordPerfect might yet figgure out how to regain number one) Better to learn concepts and then latter figgure out how to apply them. In fact I would argue that is is better to learn on something that supports what you need, but Will not be number one. By learning on the number one platform you tend to become blindly locked into it.
I disagree. A matter of philosophy, but I don't think it is the job of goverment to provide health care. It is my job to get my own health care. I have several different options for health care that I can choose from. I can choose a cheap plan, but and it will take care of me but there are a lot of rules they make to keep it cheap. I can instead choose a more expensive plan, which allows me to see better doctors, and more flexability of when and who I see. Sure it means I have to think, but at least if one of the rule makers decides that I shouldn't be allowed to get treatment I have the option (money permiting) of getting it anyway. For a while I had the no health care option, which was my choice, a risk that a young person like me is unlikely to need any health care. (It paid off, but I don't recoment it. There are dirt cheap insureance plans that cover only major heath needs)
I think you have no clue what a goverment MUST provide. Is it really the job of goverment to provide roads? The US has a perfectly good private railroad system. Is it really the goverment's job to provide schools? Most people I know consider private schools better. Personally I consider schools a local issue, and the national goverment should stay away. I'll grant that there are good arguments to having both as goverment functions though. I go back and forth myself on which side I'm on.
I find it interesting that you didn't mention military. Perhaps because the US outspends you there? How about police and court functions? And so on. I'd consider any of the above more important parts of infrastructre than what you named. (but then both of us just picked small examples)
As for what taxes should be? I'm not sure. Zero is ideal, but obviously not implimentable. Taxes should cover whatever it takes to run goverment after goverment shrinks to cover only the "essentials"
Remember this is a matter of philosphy, instead of arguing how "your country is best" try to see the other side. There are disadvanages the ideal goverment for each of us. I recignise that there are cracks too fall into in mine (I fell into the health care one by choice). Do you recignise the flaws in your system? (Our scare mongering media has plenty of stories about flaws in other countries health care systems)
I agree, the beeps are annoying in a resteraunt. However two-way is intended to be more public. When the foreman asks the boss a question, all the underlings are likely to need the answer, by using two-way we know how the boss wants it done. (and can tell the foreman he is wrong when he starts doing it wrong)
First of all, direct connect is less intrusive on drving than a normal phone. At least in my expirence, people who talk on a Nextel phone while drving are distracted and don't pay as much attention. When they use direct connect it somehow uses a different area of the brain and they pay more attention to drving. (Not as much attention as no phone, but they are safer than a phone call)
Direct connect has the advantage of not riniging. When you two-way someone you can talk instantly, not wait for someone to decide to answer the phone or not. When it is a quick important question the two-way gets attention, and you get an answer.
In construction you are docked time on the phone, but not on the two-way. The boss looks over those bills to make sure you are not talking on the phone all the time. (Note, if you only get a few calls here and there that is ignored, some wives "need" to contact their husbands every few hours and that gets in the way of real work enough to dock paychecks) Two-way is only used by other buisness people, so all the converstations by two-way are work related, and thus something you should get paid for
What does the overly high taxes in (for example) Sweden have to do with the overly high taxes in the US. I think my taxes are too high. It doesn't matter that everyone else has higher taxes, that is their problem to solve. My taxes are too high, and that is my problem to solve. (I try, but I'm only one vote)
My mom wouldn't let my jump off a bridge even if everyone else is doing it. I won't let my country collect too much taxes even if everyone else is doing it.
Not yet, but population experts expect the world population to start shrinking within my lifetime. Most "first world" countries already have a birth rate below the population replcement rate. (about 2.3 kids per family, which accounts for kids who die or don't breed)
China is already getting close, they have had a 1 kid per family policy for years, it won't be long before the first children of that policy start dieing old age, and then their population will start shrinking dramaticly. Most of Europe will see the same thing (not as dramatic) shortly. The US had a "baby boom" after WWII, so it will be longer, but current generations are not breeding at the population replacement rate.
I'll grant your points, but I'd like to throw in a different argument: BSD has created all of the above, EXCEPT a compiler, from scratch (mostly inheirted from 4.4 BSD), and it has nothing to do with the GNU tool chain. And the compiler is not a part of the OS by any definition I've ever seen. So one could take the linux kernel, combine it with a BSD userland (everything except the kernel), and it will still be linux, but it would not be GNU/linux.
Note the Debian is attempting the reverse, taking the FreeBSD kernel and combining it with a FreeBSD kernel, you would be justified in calling that result (if they ever finish it, progress seems very slow) GNU/FreeBSD.
SCO did stop distributing linux, 3 days after the first announcement if I remember right. I'd be willing to say that is a reasonable time for the various parts of their buisness to catch up with each other. Seems like a good faith effort was made.
What I find interesting is that SCO is not refunding the moneis of all current customers and ordering them to cease using linux. By not doing this they are de-facto saying that those customers have a right to use linux, which means by the GPL that any one customer can take the infringing code (once identified) and send it to Linus. Linus removes the infringing code, and then adds in the version (which is exactly the same) that the SCO customer sent it. The Customer has a right to it, and by the GPL, the customer has the right to distribute it in any way.
Look buddy, I pay too much in taxes as it is, I'm not interested in your mars project. If you want it, great, but put your own money forward to do it. Get investors if you want, but don't ask for my money. Don't try to claim space spin off will benifit me, most of the technology we need to get to Mars is there already, and it is questionable if there will even be new things developed that will affect my life.
Remember, the two vote blocks that matter are the elderyly cause they all vote, and they are the worst me generation out there, they know they don't have long to live, so they are only concerned about getting everyone else to pay for their drugs, and retirment. (cause they sent their socal security money to the moon, and didn't make alternate savings plans) The boomers (many of whom couldn't vote when their parents sent their socal security to the moon) are looking to retierment, and many of the are smart enough to figgure out that they have to do it on their own or it won't happen. They expect to live long enough to see some benifit from a space race, and enjoy any wins, but they don't see it as worth it.
And my generation is young enough to dream, but we are not only out numbered, but we are expected to pay for the retirement of our parents and grand parents. there is only so much time to dream, I'd rather dream something achievable for me. Sure someone could go to mars, but I'll bet they don't pick me, I may never realize my dream of being a pro baseball player, but at least there are sand lot games in town that I can play on and have fun.
Okay, I'm a little cynical tonight. doesn't change the fact that there isn't much on mars, and it could wait.
If you have a mass transit system, but it doesn't run either where you need to go, or at the times you need to be there, do you really have mass transit?
I looked seriously at useing the local bus system, and discovered it ran by my work a total of 4 times a day, and the total ride would be 1.5 hours (compared to.5 for my car) Time is money, a little extra time to ride the bus is relaxing, but 3 times the ride cuts into my free time to much. I have a life you know. And 4 times a day means that I can't work the hours I'd need to work. Since at the time I was working part time, and going to school full time, I didn't have the ability to make my day fit around the bus schedual. It was hard enough to fit class around work.
I don't think my situation is unique. Perhaps it would be easier for some people. Most people will refuse to tripple their commute (taking away family time) just to ride a bus.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have mass transit, but until it goes where I need to go when I need to go, I want nothing to do with it.
Re:The greedy bastards just don't get it...
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
When you have four employees working 50 hour weeks, it is cheaper for the business to hire the extra employee the need than it is to pay 40 hours a week in overtime.
Not it does not. Your forgot to factor in benifits, skill levels, company size, and work availability.
Sure it costs them more per hour to pay me, but there are fixed costs. Health insureance costs so much, as does each check, and the accounting, 401k match, etc. If you make $10/hr, you only need $200 per person overhead to make it work out. That is a reasonable (a little high) number.
Then there is skill level. My boss could hire someone else to do my job, but can he find someone equal to me? There is nobody who can start tommorow who can do my job like me. (There are those who by the end of the week will know our way of doing things, which combined with their abilities will be better) Many people want to get paid but don't want to work. What is the cost of someone who shows up, but doesn't put for the effort to do any work? You still have to pay them until you get enough cause to fire them. I'm just a laborer (I'm looking for a different job or I'd have advanced further), what about the foreman who knows how to do every part of the job and has expirence. My boss has said that he loses money on the foremans when they work overtime, but he still encourages it because the rest of us can then work, and we make enough less, and do enough work, that overall he makes more money despite losing money on some people.
Depending on how big your company is, you go under different rules. If you have less than so many employees you pay taxes different, need different insurance amounts, and can be a different type of company. (Not all of these are in the same cut offs, but that is they type of thing.) If the rules you are under require less than 10 employees, and you have 9, it may not be worth changing to a different rule set just to get the next guy.
And then there is work availability. If there is a rush job it doesn't matter if they lose money nearly so much as satisfing the customer so they will pay us again. If the work comes in spurts we are better off working overtime some weeks, and no overtime when there is less work. Compare your 4 guys alternating 40 and 50 hour weeks with 5 guys working 40 hour weeks, because some weeks you need all that work, and other weeks you are giving them all extrea hours of profitless do nothing work just so they don't quit for a job that gives them enough to live on.
Let me elaberate: Last winter my boss found himself without work for a month, he gave the guys an option: work 40 hour weeks, or take a month off. Everyone decided that there are bills to pay so we had to work. Work was found, but a lot of it was make work that obviously generated no income for the company. However if that hadn't been there, some guys would have to find a different job to pay their bills, and when work started again there would be no expirenced people left.
Last of all, don't forget that some guys like the overtime. We have bills to pay, and things to do. By paying overtime there is less profit for the company, but they are still making money, and those guys who need the money are getting more. These are the people that can be counted on to help out when there is a rush that requires everyone who can work overtime. So by planning on overtime for jobs that aren't rushed the boss can keep those who want it happy for the times when it is important to get something done.
Running a buisness is complex. Money isn't always the only factor, you end up being "penny wise and pound foolish" when you don't pay attention to the other details. And so you might on paper be better off with more people, but other factors make it a bad idea.
IANAL, but if I recall correctly, the DMCA contains an exception for interoperability. That is, if your exploit is used only to run linux, then it should fall under this clause.
In the VCR days the court found that even though there were illegal uses, that there was a substantial legal use made them legal. I would think (but I can't argue in court and I don't think the courts always make sense) that you could extend this to say that because this exploit has the use of allowing linux, it is legal under the interoperability clause.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that was the number we were given when our smallish (1200 people) company was bought out by a big (~7000 people) company. They said they were commitied to making it work, and for the first year it looked that way. Then things went downhill. Slowly management got worse as people left or got transfered. Eventially good talent was brought in, but by then it was too late, the new CEO 6 years latter didn't care about us, and 7 years latter only about 10 people have a job from the old company (some hired after the marger)
To be fair, the new CEO made the right decision, the merger failed, and could not be rescued. The problem was the salespeople had no interest in selling our products, so we had plenty of great products that nobody was buying. The merger failed because one of the benifits (the big company's salespeople had better contacts in industry, and there were mote of them) didn't work out.
In other words, even if everything seems brought now, keep yoru resume up to date, the things that make a merger fail are the same as any engeriing product: management or sales. I've seen many cases of a baddly engineered product doing well, while the compitition that is better built fails in the market.
Sure your residential sprinkler sounds good on paper. However they require quite a bit of water. In a city it is (in theory) no big deal to put a bigger pipe into all houses just to supply the sprinklers. However I have my own well, to provide for a sprinkler means I have to have a bigger pump, which costs significantly more money. The power for that pump comes from the main panel (through other boxes latter) in my utility room, right next to the most likely places a fire would start (dryer, furnance, water heater), once the sprinkler goes off the panel shorts out and before the first is out I've lost power to the well (breaker blows), not to mention water in the main box, before the main breaker.
Now look at the cost of a fire. Even a small one confined to the utility room will mean your house is unlivable for weeks or months. (smoke damage means at minimum you replace the carpet and paint everything likely more). If a residential house starts on fire you are best off, and it could be cheaper for the insurance company, if you grab the pictures (heirlooms) and then burn it to the ground, protecting the neighbors. A house is a house, people can live anywhere. Better to get out of a burning house, and then move elsewhere.
I assume there is a normal buisness phone in some office somewhere. Just put a sign outside it that says office, and people who really need it will walk in and ask to use the phone - let them. Tell the ushers that it isn't encouraged, but those who need a phone can use the office phone.
Odds are you have a first aid station somewhere already, just give them a phone (they should have it for 911 calls anyway) and they can serve phone duty too. Just make sure long distance isn't allowed, which should be cheaper than a pay phone.
P.S. Do you have tdd access phones? I'm sure they are expensive, but I know a few deaf people and I like to remind people of their special needs. It wouldn't hurt you to have one in an office somewhere.
They already exist. I've seen devices (don't recall where, try google) that will plug into a cell phone (not all models, buy the device and the cell phone at the same time to be sure they are compatable) and allow you to plug a normal phone into them. ie your mickey mouse phone.
I have also seen cell phone based pay phones. Not many because they cost something like a buck a minute. (It was in an area where the nearest phone line was over a mile away, a wilderness outfitters) They exist, ask your cell providers if they know anything about them.
I'm not a medical expert, but IIRC human ears have the ability to hear selected frequences well above the normal range. You might be able to hear everything from 20hz-14,600hz, and a few selected frequences up to 30,000hz, but others inbetween are inaudiable. The ones you can hear depend on your particular ear.
I think I understand how to explain it better, but it is late. Besides, I'd prefer those who care to do their own research to verify it, while the rest think "That's interesting I won't if it is true" than to take me as some expert.
I'd argue that he ment that programs have to function, and a comptuer is the ultimate test of a computers functionality. A poor mathamatition can make a few mistakes that get lost in complex details, and it could take years for his peers to find the mistakes.
Say for example there is a flaw in the proof of Fermets's last theorm. It is still well accepted, and it seems to fit, but somewhere some detail is wrong. I personally don't have the ability to find it, and few of those reading this do. Compare that to a comptuer program where you can run it, and play with it. You can soon convince yourself that it mostly works or doesn't. Of course there can still be bugs in the program that hide for years, but a large subset of potential bugs will not pass the first test on a real computer.
IIRC When computers finially became powerful enough to run the first programs (written by the likes of Alan Turning, Ada Lovelace) several bugs were found in them despite being much simpler than modern programs and reviewed by many peers.
Of course you could argue that this checking makes programing easier because you don't have to be smart enough to find your mistakes, only smart enough to figgure out where they are once you know what it is.
I don't buy thta because coffee drinkers like their coffee hot. The complain when it isn't.
I worked at McDonalds at the time, in reaction to the result I (At the time it was my personal job to make sure all tempatures were in spec, checking weekly, my boss said go with the lower limit on coffee so I did) turned our coffee tempature down to the lowest setting, (140 degrees f) and got complaints about the quality of the coffee after that. Eventially we turned to the upper end of the range acceptable (160-165 IIRC - what is was before), and the complaints stoped.
Personally I can't stand coffee, but most who like it like it hot, and they will complain if it isn't. Those who don't like it hot know enough to order ice with it, which several people did.
Thats always my objection to vote receipts. If I take my receipt and put it in a box, then I can verify my vote on the paper, and if there is any question I make them count the entire box.
If someone claims that the election results are wrong and trys to punish me for my vote I can claim that I voted as instructed, it was someone else. Since it is a seceret ballot, there is no way to prove otherwise.
Just because Nixon was a bad guy doens't make Clinton not a bad guy. Both subverted the law and got away with it!
Perjury, lieing under oath is a crime, and should be. If he didn't want to say anything, then he should have either pleaded the fifth (I'm not sure if he could, does that apply in a civil case?), had his lawyer object, or told the truth, and then appealed the decision as made partially on a question that he should not have had to answer. Lieing is NOT forgivable. Doesn't matter if it is your political party of the other party, you should not allow your leader to get away with it or any other crime.
I'll grant that who the president sleeps with is a private matter, so long as it is discreetly done between consenting adults. However someone claimed sexual harrasement, and once that happens other things are often brought to light that otherwise we wouldn't care about.
Still, IMHO Clinton was a bad president Claiming credit for ecconomic cycles that he can't control. (and so on), but that he would have been a bad president even if he hadn't lied under oath. By lieing under oath though he was IMO no longer fit to serve. Nixon at least resigned - eventially.
Florida is known for corruption, no arguement there.
However it is possibal to run a fair electoin even when biased. Not easy mind you, but you can do it. I don't know florida very well, but I know in most states the democrats and republicans jointly run the elections (I'd accuse them on collusion to prevent thrid parties more than eliminate each other just because they can work togather on that). I know people who are called in as election judges every election because they are the only republicans in an otherwise democratic area. Everyone recignises the importance of being fair and tries for it. I assume Florida does this, which should negate any idea that the leader is unfair just because she is biased.
All the recounts I'm aware of in Florida have shown that Bush would have won no matter what. (Unless you statisticly count Bucannan voters for Gore, but while that might be the intent, it might not be, and the vote was clear if wrong) Therefore any court decision should not change the outcome.
I'm really tired of hearing about this. You don't like Bush? Woop dee doo, I didn't like Clinton. I got over it long before either of his terms where up. Part of our form of goverment means that you will not always have a representative that you like. Deal with it.
You get used to the keyboard on laptops. Don't forget that you can plug one in at your desk. I know of some companies that standerdised on laptops, with a fullsize keyboard, mouse, and monitor on every desk. For support personel that have to travel once in a while it is a good solution. It isn't a big deal to plug and unplug 4 cables every day. (Power, monitor, keyboard, and mouse. The latter can be combined today into a usb hub)
Sound is nice, but hardly required on a buisness laptop. At least for most buisness purposes sound is better left off. For personal use (games, mp3), that is a different story. I know people who purchased high priced PCMCIA sound cards for their laptop. For most of us that is overkill. Again, it isn't that big a deal to add one more cable to the list of those to plug in every morning once you have a routine. If you even need sound.
What upgrades? I rarely upgrade my desktop computer. With USB, and firewire most upgrades are easy, you buy an external drive, and when you travel you choose what you need to take with you. Or you install wireless (802.11) and connect to a server. Obviously that doesn't cover everything (video), but it covers most of what you need.
Mind you I'm not saying a laptop is perfect for everyone. They are a nice solution to several real problems. I have a perfectly good desktop myself, so I'm thinking about a laptop for the times when I don't want to be at my desk. I can use the latop in my backyard, on the couch, at my parents house, and so on.
Sure the artical makes it sound like a bad decision. However remembver that each person is different, and will react differently to any given drug. So one person dies. Lets assume that it is directly caused by the drug (as opposed to coincidence). If a million other people will be helped, and one person dies, that is very good odds. If I'm one person that could be helped by that drug, then I want it on the market.
Note that the drug company should keep track of these cases, if they find a lot of deaths from the drug then they should pull it. However eventially you need to draw a line and say "Since we don't have a perfect ability to figgure out how any given person will respond, we need to draw a line and accept a few losses." Doesn't mean it isn't a tragity to the person who dies, but it is a risk we need to take.
Note that I'm assuming proper FDA approval was gone through. If they cheated and someone dies, then you have a case. If they did everything right, and the drug worked with few, perdictable, side effects, then it should be on the market. Any one person who dies because of it is a sad loss, but something we must accept. Again, it doesn't lessen the loss to those who knew the person who's body reacted differently, and I feel sorry for them. We can't hold back others (who could die without the treatment) because of one death.
sorry, but the courts had nothing to do with who was elected. They enforced the rules that already existed. By ever re-count after the election Bush won. (Even if someone ment to vote for Gore, which seems appearant, and they did not, and we cannot change someone's vote because it might have been intended for someone else) Bush won all the Florida recounts. By US law, majority does not rule in presidential elections, the smaller states (which florida is not one) get a larger count to help prevent large states from trompeling on small states.
Before the election Gore expect to win, in a similear way to Bush: win electoral votes, but not the majority. He said he would not resign in Bush's favor should that happen. Would your complaint be just as loud had he won? Most current complainers would be happy with that situation. (though I expect a few republicans would complain)
Looking at the major choices in the last presidential election I'm glad I voted for a third party canidate. Honestly, I don't think either Gore or Bush are good presidents.
Back when I was in high school, they were all proud of their up to date computer lab where students learned WordPerfect 5.1 (which just came out IIRC) for dos, the same system industry is using Here were are 10 years latter and wordPerfect is all but dead in industry, and Word is number one. However my last job required I know and use FrameMaker for all my official documents. (Word was avaiable, and used for some documents, but the official ones I created had to be done in Frame)
The point is that I don't know what will be number one in 10 years. Perhaps kWord will completely take over MSWord by then. It shows promise already, and free is a good arguement. (OpenOffice, StarOffice, AbiWord all come to mind as potential compititors, and WordPerfect might yet figgure out how to regain number one) Better to learn concepts and then latter figgure out how to apply them. In fact I would argue that is is better to learn on something that supports what you need, but Will not be number one. By learning on the number one platform you tend to become blindly locked into it.
I disagree. A matter of philosophy, but I don't think it is the job of goverment to provide health care. It is my job to get my own health care. I have several different options for health care that I can choose from. I can choose a cheap plan, but and it will take care of me but there are a lot of rules they make to keep it cheap. I can instead choose a more expensive plan, which allows me to see better doctors, and more flexability of when and who I see. Sure it means I have to think, but at least if one of the rule makers decides that I shouldn't be allowed to get treatment I have the option (money permiting) of getting it anyway. For a while I had the no health care option, which was my choice, a risk that a young person like me is unlikely to need any health care. (It paid off, but I don't recoment it. There are dirt cheap insureance plans that cover only major heath needs)
I think you have no clue what a goverment MUST provide. Is it really the job of goverment to provide roads? The US has a perfectly good private railroad system. Is it really the goverment's job to provide schools? Most people I know consider private schools better. Personally I consider schools a local issue, and the national goverment should stay away. I'll grant that there are good arguments to having both as goverment functions though. I go back and forth myself on which side I'm on.
I find it interesting that you didn't mention military. Perhaps because the US outspends you there? How about police and court functions? And so on. I'd consider any of the above more important parts of infrastructre than what you named. (but then both of us just picked small examples)
As for what taxes should be? I'm not sure. Zero is ideal, but obviously not implimentable. Taxes should cover whatever it takes to run goverment after goverment shrinks to cover only the "essentials"
Remember this is a matter of philosphy, instead of arguing how "your country is best" try to see the other side. There are disadvanages the ideal goverment for each of us. I recignise that there are cracks too fall into in mine (I fell into the health care one by choice). Do you recignise the flaws in your system? (Our scare mongering media has plenty of stories about flaws in other countries health care systems)
I agree, the beeps are annoying in a resteraunt. However two-way is intended to be more public. When the foreman asks the boss a question, all the underlings are likely to need the answer, by using two-way we know how the boss wants it done. (and can tell the foreman he is wrong when he starts doing it wrong)
First of all, direct connect is less intrusive on drving than a normal phone. At least in my expirence, people who talk on a Nextel phone while drving are distracted and don't pay as much attention. When they use direct connect it somehow uses a different area of the brain and they pay more attention to drving. (Not as much attention as no phone, but they are safer than a phone call)
Direct connect has the advantage of not riniging. When you two-way someone you can talk instantly, not wait for someone to decide to answer the phone or not. When it is a quick important question the two-way gets attention, and you get an answer.
In construction you are docked time on the phone, but not on the two-way. The boss looks over those bills to make sure you are not talking on the phone all the time. (Note, if you only get a few calls here and there that is ignored, some wives "need" to contact their husbands every few hours and that gets in the way of real work enough to dock paychecks) Two-way is only used by other buisness people, so all the converstations by two-way are work related, and thus something you should get paid for
What does the overly high taxes in (for example) Sweden have to do with the overly high taxes in the US. I think my taxes are too high. It doesn't matter that everyone else has higher taxes, that is their problem to solve. My taxes are too high, and that is my problem to solve. (I try, but I'm only one vote)
My mom wouldn't let my jump off a bridge even if everyone else is doing it. I won't let my country collect too much taxes even if everyone else is doing it.
Not yet, but population experts expect the world population to start shrinking within my lifetime. Most "first world" countries already have a birth rate below the population replcement rate. (about 2.3 kids per family, which accounts for kids who die or don't breed)
China is already getting close, they have had a 1 kid per family policy for years, it won't be long before the first children of that policy start dieing old age, and then their population will start shrinking dramaticly. Most of Europe will see the same thing (not as dramatic) shortly. The US had a "baby boom" after WWII, so it will be longer, but current generations are not breeding at the population replacement rate.
I'll grant your points, but I'd like to throw in a different argument: BSD has created all of the above, EXCEPT a compiler, from scratch (mostly inheirted from 4.4 BSD), and it has nothing to do with the GNU tool chain. And the compiler is not a part of the OS by any definition I've ever seen. So one could take the linux kernel, combine it with a BSD userland (everything except the kernel), and it will still be linux, but it would not be GNU/linux.
Note the Debian is attempting the reverse, taking the FreeBSD kernel and combining it with a FreeBSD kernel, you would be justified in calling that result (if they ever finish it, progress seems very slow) GNU/FreeBSD.
SCO did stop distributing linux, 3 days after the first announcement if I remember right. I'd be willing to say that is a reasonable time for the various parts of their buisness to catch up with each other. Seems like a good faith effort was made.
What I find interesting is that SCO is not refunding the moneis of all current customers and ordering them to cease using linux. By not doing this they are de-facto saying that those customers have a right to use linux, which means by the GPL that any one customer can take the infringing code (once identified) and send it to Linus. Linus removes the infringing code, and then adds in the version (which is exactly the same) that the SCO customer sent it. The Customer has a right to it, and by the GPL, the customer has the right to distribute it in any way.
Look buddy, I pay too much in taxes as it is, I'm not interested in your mars project. If you want it, great, but put your own money forward to do it. Get investors if you want, but don't ask for my money. Don't try to claim space spin off will benifit me, most of the technology we need to get to Mars is there already, and it is questionable if there will even be new things developed that will affect my life.
Remember, the two vote blocks that matter are the elderyly cause they all vote, and they are the worst me generation out there, they know they don't have long to live, so they are only concerned about getting everyone else to pay for their drugs, and retirment. (cause they sent their socal security money to the moon, and didn't make alternate savings plans) The boomers (many of whom couldn't vote when their parents sent their socal security to the moon) are looking to retierment, and many of the are smart enough to figgure out that they have to do it on their own or it won't happen. They expect to live long enough to see some benifit from a space race, and enjoy any wins, but they don't see it as worth it.
And my generation is young enough to dream, but we are not only out numbered, but we are expected to pay for the retirement of our parents and grand parents. there is only so much time to dream, I'd rather dream something achievable for me. Sure someone could go to mars, but I'll bet they don't pick me, I may never realize my dream of being a pro baseball player, but at least there are sand lot games in town that I can play on and have fun.
Okay, I'm a little cynical tonight. doesn't change the fact that there isn't much on mars, and it could wait.
If you have a mass transit system, but it doesn't run either where you need to go, or at the times you need to be there, do you really have mass transit?
I looked seriously at useing the local bus system, and discovered it ran by my work a total of 4 times a day, and the total ride would be 1.5 hours (compared to .5 for my car) Time is money, a little extra time to ride the bus is relaxing, but 3 times the ride cuts into my free time to much. I have a life you know. And 4 times a day means that I can't work the hours I'd need to work. Since at the time I was working part time, and going to school full time, I didn't have the ability to make my day fit around the bus schedual. It was hard enough to fit class around work.
I don't think my situation is unique. Perhaps it would be easier for some people. Most people will refuse to tripple their commute (taking away family time) just to ride a bus.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have mass transit, but until it goes where I need to go when I need to go, I want nothing to do with it.
When you have four employees working 50 hour weeks, it is cheaper for the business to hire the extra employee the need than it is to pay 40 hours a week in overtime.
Not it does not. Your forgot to factor in benifits, skill levels, company size, and work availability.
Sure it costs them more per hour to pay me, but there are fixed costs. Health insureance costs so much, as does each check, and the accounting, 401k match, etc. If you make $10/hr, you only need $200 per person overhead to make it work out. That is a reasonable (a little high) number.
Then there is skill level. My boss could hire someone else to do my job, but can he find someone equal to me? There is nobody who can start tommorow who can do my job like me. (There are those who by the end of the week will know our way of doing things, which combined with their abilities will be better) Many people want to get paid but don't want to work. What is the cost of someone who shows up, but doesn't put for the effort to do any work? You still have to pay them until you get enough cause to fire them. I'm just a laborer (I'm looking for a different job or I'd have advanced further), what about the foreman who knows how to do every part of the job and has expirence. My boss has said that he loses money on the foremans when they work overtime, but he still encourages it because the rest of us can then work, and we make enough less, and do enough work, that overall he makes more money despite losing money on some people.
Depending on how big your company is, you go under different rules. If you have less than so many employees you pay taxes different, need different insurance amounts, and can be a different type of company. (Not all of these are in the same cut offs, but that is they type of thing.) If the rules you are under require less than 10 employees, and you have 9, it may not be worth changing to a different rule set just to get the next guy.
And then there is work availability. If there is a rush job it doesn't matter if they lose money nearly so much as satisfing the customer so they will pay us again. If the work comes in spurts we are better off working overtime some weeks, and no overtime when there is less work. Compare your 4 guys alternating 40 and 50 hour weeks with 5 guys working 40 hour weeks, because some weeks you need all that work, and other weeks you are giving them all extrea hours of profitless do nothing work just so they don't quit for a job that gives them enough to live on.
Let me elaberate: Last winter my boss found himself without work for a month, he gave the guys an option: work 40 hour weeks, or take a month off. Everyone decided that there are bills to pay so we had to work. Work was found, but a lot of it was make work that obviously generated no income for the company. However if that hadn't been there, some guys would have to find a different job to pay their bills, and when work started again there would be no expirenced people left.
Last of all, don't forget that some guys like the overtime. We have bills to pay, and things to do. By paying overtime there is less profit for the company, but they are still making money, and those guys who need the money are getting more. These are the people that can be counted on to help out when there is a rush that requires everyone who can work overtime. So by planning on overtime for jobs that aren't rushed the boss can keep those who want it happy for the times when it is important to get something done.
Running a buisness is complex. Money isn't always the only factor, you end up being "penny wise and pound foolish" when you don't pay attention to the other details. And so you might on paper be better off with more people, but other factors make it a bad idea.
IANAL, but if I recall correctly, the DMCA contains an exception for interoperability. That is, if your exploit is used only to run linux, then it should fall under this clause.
In the VCR days the court found that even though there were illegal uses, that there was a substantial legal use made them legal. I would think (but I can't argue in court and I don't think the courts always make sense) that you could extend this to say that because this exploit has the use of allowing linux, it is legal under the interoperability clause.