Why discount the public sector? That boosts your number to 15.3% (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm). Outside of that, the number has no significance without context -- especially when you consider that within specific industries and trades, union membership is much closer to 100%.
Another interesting fact in that report shows that IT union members show no significant differences in salary from non-union members.
As to the Nordic economy -- correlation is not causation (as we like to blindly mouth on Slashdot). There are so many other factors to take into consideration - starting with the very basis of the economy - that neither health of the economy nor the quality of life cannot be compared on the basis of union membership.
That aside -- it's a bit of a non-issue since nowhere did I say that unions are responsible for all of our economic ills. I only said that I've seen how modern unions are abused.
That's a fine fantasy you're living in. As I said, I'm talking about modern unions. Back in the coal mines, unions were useful and necessary.
I suggest you do some homework to see the real effect current-day unions have today in nearly all industries. Cronyism, union politics, backroom-dealings -- they've got it all.
A friend of mine (yeah, I know, anecdotal evidence and all) was a union negotiator at a power company. The union wanted better terms -- and so he informally sat down with the CEO, and negotiated all the terms. Great, strike avoided, everyone would be happy.
The union president said, "Nope, we have to strike. Take a couple of weeks, have everyone prepare for it. Also, I need you to come up with a list of demands that exceed what was agreed upon, so that we can publish it. "
Net result: everyone worked to finish up all their tasks before the strike. They striked, unpaid. A few weeks later, management and the union "agreed" upon the conditions that were settled up front. Because of the rush to complete everything ahead of time, and the period w/out payroll, the company had record profits for that quarter and stocks went up.
Oh, and the workers "represented" by the union? They got the terms originally agreed upon; unfortunately once you factor in the lost wages from the strike, you realize that the average employee would have had to work five additional years under the negotiated terms just to break even. But hey, that's OK -- the union president looked like a hero to them, after having "negotiated" the favorable terms. The union was just looking out for its members, right?
In theory, unions are great. In practice, there's too much corruption; IMO that can only be expected. When you hand someone unlimited control over your future "for the common good", it's not going to end well -- whether it's government or union.
. IT workers don't have unions to protect them like mechanics and doctors.
And thank the stars for that one. I've seen what modern unions have done in other industries, and am happy to not be a part of one. Other than that, I agree with you completely.
Men don't have to be passionate about computers and programming to do well in our field. It's possible to be a day-job geek who never plays video games, doesn't own an iphone, and doesn't read xkcd, yet still thrive in high-tech.
It's *possible*, but in my experience if there's not a passion for programming, you get the situation like we have with so many offshore workers; or with the droves of onshore workers who jumped on the bandwagon in the 90s. By the books they can do their jobs. But they're in it for the money, and have absolutely no talent for it. They can code to a [VERY detailed] spec, but don't ask them to troubleshoot or think of a solution independently.
The fugitive slave laws are a system to ensure that those who have spent good money buying and training Africans don't get screwed just cause some abolitionist runs an underground railroad and could, hypothetically, free as many slaves as possible
Wow, that was fairly obnoxious. You may have missed the part where slaves were people, and content isn't.
I suggest you look at market share figures some time.
I have. Apparently you haven't -- unless it's the apple-PR which makes them look like they have a complete monopoly already. I suppose in the world of apple's walled garden they do -- it's easy when you pretend there's no competition.
Maybe if you're a total nerd and tinkerer. For most users, Apple has a pretty unique combination with iTunes and iPad; that's pretty much the only combo that my non-technical friends and relatives are capable of using. Kindle kind of comes close, but just for books, and even it isn't really competitive.
Anecdotes do not evidence make, try again with meaningful data. When something is on the market for less than two months, it's pretty hard to draw any kind of conclusion. Let's chat again in a year - based on the advertising, Apple's not even heavily marketing iPad as a reading device.
Unlike Apple, broadcasters (and cable companies) are regulated and are forced to provide some kinds of access and content even if they don't want to.
I'm sorry, somehow I lost your point. What was it again?
Fortunately, just because you're a moron doesn't mean everybody is.
You're the one who can't figure out <quote> tags, yet I'm the moron? (Do you see how pointless, irrelevant, yet easy personal attacks are? I suppose if they make you feel better...)
Indeed. Reading the summary, I thought it was some kind of article on how programmers can't remember names (I know I can't...)
But basically, it's some dude whining about how - because there is no single set of rules that can be universally applied to all names - no systems handle them correctly. That seems kind of self-evident to me; computers are rules-based creations. If you can't define the rules, it sure is hard to code for them. Blaming the programmers is stupid - as his own article shows. (eg. "[don't assume] Names are case-sensitive. [don't assume] Names are case-insensitive".
Not sure why this made it to slashdot -- it's just a rant.
Dude- get a new dentist. I don't know if I'm the exception or the rule - but I get about one complete set of x-rays every two years no matter what work I'm getting done.
Look, jackass - I never said it wasn't the case. In fact, you will see I said "most" situations -- because obviously (even to somebody such as yourself) nothing is true 100% of the time. There are situations which you truly can't be prepared or can't evade. But hey, congratulations - you win the Belaboring the Obvious award!
Now, you mention the driver's speed (why doesn't the driver have a name? Isn't he important? Sad ploy, that.) His speed didn't kill Billy Bob and Jessie Sue. His stupidity did. (Do some work in systems analysis and debugging to understand this better. The root cause is rarely the same as the direct or proximate cause.)
It likely would. Unfortunately, we've got an entire industry built around government regulations about nightime vehicle lighting.
It's a tough call though - if you don't have good night vision, you're definitely better off with headlights (and the incumbent blindness associated with oncoming traffic lights on a dark two-way street late at night. or that yahoo who doesn't turn his high-beams off.). And there's no real measure of "good night vision", nor what extent of the populace has it.
This is different to Walmart deciding not to carry content its store owners find objectionable, how?
Apple is trying to become a primary conduit for digital media; if they succeed, then we are stuck with their censorship rules.
Maybe you are. Me, I don't buy my stuff from Apple -- because even as a major conduit, they are neither the only nor the largest option out there.
That's why people need to understand the danger that Apple poses now, before Apple succeeds in establishing a Microsoft-like monopoly over media, content, and apps.
Could you explain that danger again? Apple can only establish a monopoly if there's no competition -- and I hate to break it to you, but there's plenty of competition out there. ANd no indications of the playing field shrinking any time soon.
just like network TV can say "no swearing before 9pm"
TV networks are forced to do that by government rules.
Stop nit-picking. You know perfectly well that any television broadcaster can lay own arbitrary rules for the content it allows. Just because this one is arguably an inappropriate example doesn't invalidate the point.
or a store can say "we'll carry all of your products except that flavoured lube you make, it just doesn't fit with our image".
Individual physical stores can't impose worldwide controls over products or content; those that do get big enough to do so are just as much of a concern as Apple is.
Eh? No, but any large chain can. Wal-mart can stop selling CDs by a certain artist because of the content. This would apply to ALL stores. But guess what -- you can always go to K-Mart. But I agree with you - those big enough to do so deserve just as much concern as Apple does. That is to say - essentially none.
Just because other companies are sleazy and dangerous doesn't mean we should stop complaining about Apple.
Complain all you want, just don't expect expect people to take you seriously when the entire premise of your argument is "they might maybe one day become a monopoly and We should stop that now". I might one day become the PoTUS, but I show as much sign of doing so as Apple shows of becoming a monopoly in digital publishing. Please don't shoot me for the good of the country because of that minuscule chance.
Google Picassa is actually quite good at everything you asked for, and, it has face recognition, so once you tag one face, it generally recognises most of the images of the same person for you.
That is to say: once you tag a face, Google will generally be able to identify that person forever -- in almost any scenario?
I've kind of wondered about that myself. If you're using headlights, your visibility is sharply limited to what the lights show. Without them, you can generally see further and certainly a wider range on the sides. The problem is more a matter of being visible to *other* drivers, I think - for that, headlights are a big help.
A relentless focus on profit over all else is the scourge of capitalism in our nation. We have forgotten that business exists to serve people, people do not exist for the sake of money
Which includes the people who own them. Who generally want money.
The mac fanatics will just say the usual:
"but Apple isn't in a monopoly on the phone market!"
I actually don't much care for apple, but... um... can you point which part of that statement you take issue with? Apple doesn't have a majority of the phone share market, never mind a monopoly. I know this because I exercise my choice to not use them every single day I don't buy an Apple phone - and that's been well over 10,000 days now. When I pick a new phone to buy, it doesn't magically turn into an Apple device - in fact, I have more choices now than ever before. The vast majority of phones I can pick from aren't made by Apple, or running Apple software.
And hence they can't do anything wrong and you will be moderated troll.
They can do plenty wrong; but they can't force people to deal with it who didn't already sign up for it. And they can't force people to continue dealing with it against their will. (Developers might have to weigh profit motive against their own principles in the case of app store foolishness, but in that case it's still not against their will.)
Anyway -- I'm just confused as to why the "mac fanatics" are wrong in saying apple doesn't have a monopoly? As an apple-disliker, I've said that myself in comments. If anything, I would say the mac fans are the ones who are most likely to see a monopoly - as their [apparent] choices are limited everytime Apple does something new that's stupid and/or restrictive. To that more limited perspective - mac as world - you have many fewer choices available to you than to someone on the outside of the garden.
Slashdot Mirror
Another interesting fact in that report shows that IT union members show no significant differences in salary from non-union members.
As to the Nordic economy -- correlation is not causation (as we like to blindly mouth on Slashdot). There are so many other factors to take into consideration - starting with the very basis of the economy - that neither health of the economy nor the quality of life cannot be compared on the basis of union membership.
That aside -- it's a bit of a non-issue since nowhere did I say that unions are responsible for all of our economic ills. I only said that I've seen how modern unions are abused.
I suggest you do some homework to see the real effect current-day unions have today in nearly all industries. Cronyism, union politics, backroom-dealings -- they've got it all.
A friend of mine (yeah, I know, anecdotal evidence and all) was a union negotiator at a power company. The union wanted better terms -- and so he informally sat down with the CEO, and negotiated all the terms. Great, strike avoided, everyone would be happy.
The union president said, "Nope, we have to strike. Take a couple of weeks, have everyone prepare for it. Also, I need you to come up with a list of demands that exceed what was agreed upon, so that we can publish it. "
Net result: everyone worked to finish up all their tasks before the strike. They striked, unpaid. A few weeks later, management and the union "agreed" upon the conditions that were settled up front. Because of the rush to complete everything ahead of time, and the period w/out payroll, the company had record profits for that quarter and stocks went up.
Oh, and the workers "represented" by the union? They got the terms originally agreed upon; unfortunately once you factor in the lost wages from the strike, you realize that the average employee would have had to work five additional years under the negotiated terms just to break even. But hey, that's OK -- the union president looked like a hero to them, after having "negotiated" the favorable terms. The union was just looking out for its members, right?
In theory, unions are great. In practice, there's too much corruption; IMO that can only be expected. When you hand someone unlimited control over your future "for the common good", it's not going to end well -- whether it's government or union.
. IT workers don't have unions to protect them like mechanics and doctors.
And thank the stars for that one. I've seen what modern unions have done in other industries, and am happy to not be a part of one. Other than that, I agree with you completely.
Men don't have to be passionate about computers and programming to do well in our field. It's possible to be a day-job geek who never plays video games, doesn't own an iphone, and doesn't read xkcd, yet still thrive in high-tech.
It's *possible*, but in my experience if there's not a passion for programming, you get the situation like we have with so many offshore workers; or with the droves of onshore workers who jumped on the bandwagon in the 90s. By the books they can do their jobs. But they're in it for the money, and have absolutely no talent for it. They can code to a [VERY detailed] spec, but don't ask them to troubleshoot or think of a solution independently.
or the iJerk.
That's a social problem. And I already see them everywhere...
When a private corporation is effectively controlled by government political appointment, it ceases to be a private corporation.
The fugitive slave laws are a system to ensure that those who have spent good money buying and training Africans don't get screwed just cause some abolitionist runs an underground railroad and could, hypothetically, free as many slaves as possible
Wow, that was fairly obnoxious. You may have missed the part where slaves were people, and content isn't.
I suggest you look at market share figures some time.
I have. Apparently you haven't -- unless it's the apple-PR which makes them look like they have a complete monopoly already. I suppose in the world of apple's walled garden they do -- it's easy when you pretend there's no competition.
Maybe if you're a total nerd and tinkerer. For most users, Apple has a pretty unique combination with iTunes and iPad; that's pretty much the only combo that my non-technical friends and relatives are capable of using. Kindle kind of comes close, but just for books, and even it isn't really competitive.
Anecdotes do not evidence make, try again with meaningful data. When something is on the market for less than two months, it's pretty hard to draw any kind of conclusion. Let's chat again in a year - based on the advertising, Apple's not even heavily marketing iPad as a reading device.
Unlike Apple, broadcasters (and cable companies) are regulated and are forced to provide some kinds of access and content even if they don't want to.
I'm sorry, somehow I lost your point. What was it again?
Fortunately, just because you're a moron doesn't mean everybody is.
You're the one who can't figure out <quote> tags, yet I'm the moron? (Do you see how pointless, irrelevant, yet easy personal attacks are? I suppose if they make you feel better...)
But basically, it's some dude whining about how - because there is no single set of rules that can be universally applied to all names - no systems handle them correctly. That seems kind of self-evident to me; computers are rules-based creations. If you can't define the rules, it sure is hard to code for them. Blaming the programmers is stupid - as his own article shows. (eg. "[don't assume] Names are case-sensitive. [don't assume] Names are case-insensitive".
Not sure why this made it to slashdot -- it's just a rant.
Dude- get a new dentist. I don't know if I'm the exception or the rule - but I get about one complete set of x-rays every two years no matter what work I'm getting done.
Look, jackass - I never said it wasn't the case. In fact, you will see I said "most" situations -- because obviously (even to somebody such as yourself) nothing is true 100% of the time. There are situations which you truly can't be prepared or can't evade. But hey, congratulations - you win the Belaboring the Obvious award!
Now, you mention the driver's speed (why doesn't the driver have a name? Isn't he important? Sad ploy, that.) His speed didn't kill Billy Bob and Jessie Sue. His stupidity did. (Do some work in systems analysis and debugging to understand this better. The root cause is rarely the same as the direct or proximate cause.)
It's a tough call though - if you don't have good night vision, you're definitely better off with headlights (and the incumbent blindness associated with oncoming traffic lights on a dark two-way street late at night. or that yahoo who doesn't turn his high-beams off.). And there's no real measure of "good night vision", nor what extent of the populace has it.
This is different to Walmart deciding not to carry content its store owners find objectionable, how?
Apple is trying to become a primary conduit for digital media; if they succeed, then we are stuck with their censorship rules.
Maybe you are. Me, I don't buy my stuff from Apple -- because even as a major conduit, they are neither the only nor the largest option out there.
That's why people need to understand the danger that Apple poses now, before Apple succeeds in establishing a Microsoft-like monopoly over media, content, and apps.
Could you explain that danger again? Apple can only establish a monopoly if there's no competition -- and I hate to break it to you, but there's plenty of competition out there. ANd no indications of the playing field shrinking any time soon.
just like network TV can say "no swearing before 9pm"
TV networks are forced to do that by government rules.
Stop nit-picking. You know perfectly well that any television broadcaster can lay own arbitrary rules for the content it allows. Just because this one is arguably an inappropriate example doesn't invalidate the point.
or a store can say "we'll carry all of your products except that flavoured lube you make, it just doesn't fit with our image".
Individual physical stores can't impose worldwide controls over products or content; those that do get big enough to do so are just as much of a concern as Apple is.
Eh? No, but any large chain can. Wal-mart can stop selling CDs by a certain artist because of the content. This would apply to ALL stores. But guess what -- you can always go to K-Mart. But I agree with you - those big enough to do so deserve just as much concern as Apple does. That is to say - essentially none.
Just because other companies are sleazy and dangerous doesn't mean we should stop complaining about Apple.
Complain all you want, just don't expect expect people to take you seriously when the entire premise of your argument is "they might maybe one day become a monopoly and We should stop that now". I might one day become the PoTUS, but I show as much sign of doing so as Apple shows of becoming a monopoly in digital publishing. Please don't shoot me for the good of the country because of that minuscule chance.
It different because if you don't like Walmart's policy you can go to Target or any other store.
Dude... did you really just walk right into it like that?
Yes. Yes you did.
Google Picassa is actually quite good at everything you asked for, and, it has face recognition, so once you tag one face, it generally recognises most of the images of the same person for you.
That is to say: once you tag a face, Google will generally be able to identify that person forever -- in almost any scenario?
I've kind of wondered about that myself. If you're using headlights, your visibility is sharply limited to what the lights show. Without them, you can generally see further and certainly a wider range on the sides. The problem is more a matter of being visible to *other* drivers, I think - for that, headlights are a big help.
A relentless focus on profit over all else is the scourge of capitalism in our nation. We have forgotten that business exists to serve people, people do not exist for the sake of money
Which includes the people who own them. Who generally want money.
Ouch - walked right into that one.
No, we're an ex jock with a coke problem they are still in denial about.
Anyone else read that as "an ex-cock with a joke problem", and trying to figure out how exactly that would work?
Spell "USSA" with SS in runes. The USA is in ruins.
United Soviet Socialist of America? That doesn't scan well at all.
It's recommended that you look at your display or phone from around an arms length away or risk damaging your vision in the long term.
What if I have very short arms, you insensitive clod!
So when you buy an iPhone, you accept that it's still Steve's? Wow.
Actually, I don't -- which is why I don't buy an iPhone ;)
The mac fanatics will just say the usual: "but Apple isn't in a monopoly on the phone market!"
I actually don't much care for apple, but ... um... can you point which part of that statement you take issue with? Apple doesn't have a majority of the phone share market, never mind a monopoly. I know this because I exercise my choice to not use them every single day I don't buy an Apple phone - and that's been well over 10,000 days now. When I pick a new phone to buy, it doesn't magically turn into an Apple device - in fact, I have more choices now than ever before. The vast majority of phones I can pick from aren't made by Apple, or running Apple software.
And hence they can't do anything wrong and you will be moderated troll.
They can do plenty wrong; but they can't force people to deal with it who didn't already sign up for it. And they can't force people to continue dealing with it against their will. (Developers might have to weigh profit motive against their own principles in the case of app store foolishness, but in that case it's still not against their will.)
Anyway -- I'm just confused as to why the "mac fanatics" are wrong in saying apple doesn't have a monopoly? As an apple-disliker, I've said that myself in comments. If anything, I would say the mac fans are the ones who are most likely to see a monopoly - as their [apparent] choices are limited everytime Apple does something new that's stupid and/or restrictive. To that more limited perspective - mac as world - you have many fewer choices available to you than to someone on the outside of the garden.
Well said
I just want to thank whoever modded my post redundant. That was beautifully ironic, and gave me a good laugh :D