This sounds like a post made with little facts and mostly conjecture.
Yes teachers, administrators, and principals are in unions and are protected, but layoffs can still occur within union contracts. People can still get fired, (of course, it's a lot harder), but unions understand that in order for a business, (in this case--a school district), there will be layoffs and firings.
In most cases, the teachers get no severance package as a corporate employee would, and because of their little salary, there is minimal cushion following the layoffs.
Your comparison between the corporate world and the education does highlight differences, but you exaggerate the influence and power of the unions. Labor unions can lobby, but they can't singlehandedly dictate economics. Nor can they grow money on trees.
when you have a family and a home with kids in school, it's not easy to just pick up and move so that you can get paid for overtime. If I had a wife who was also in the midst of her career, would it be fair for her to drop her goals and professional capital because I don't agree with CA's labor laws?
Also, asking kids who are older, to pick up and leave their lives behind is also no easy task. A house, that you may have paid off already, is also a reason for not leaving. And maybe you just love the state of California and enjoy living there.
maybe you're one of those single young guys who don't mind working the additional overtime for free. Why don't you move somewhere else so that we can demand overtime?
That makes no sense. How does buying cell phones separately "destroy" the market? If you have any supporting evidence, then please provide it.
I, on other hand, do have evidence that suggests otherwise. This was talked about in previous articles of/. but I'll reiterate what's been said already.
Consider Asia, in which many countries have separated the cell phone manufacturing industry from the cell phone service providers. Phones there are much cheaper for several reasons:
1. The standard of living there is lower.
2. There's more competition between cell phone manufacturers because of the ability to buy any phone for any network provider.
The wireless provider plans are much cheaper with either no contracts or short contracts because:
1. They have to compete with other providers based solely on service instead of the phones that they offer exclusively.
2. No phones are "locked" meaning that the market is more open and competitive.
With these facts please tell me how you reached your opinion and how it's the fault of the consumer and not the industry? If I can remember, the industry formed the business model, not the customers.
I think the law requires that the user and receiver have an expectation of privacy in those e-mails. If the employer notifies all users that all email is monitored and should only be used for work-related purposes, then the users has no viable expectation of privacy which would protect any priveleged personal information in their work emails. If you are using work resources to achieve personal goals, then you pretty much surrender that expectation.
I think you're missing the point. This isn't a rip on the iPhone, but on the American cell phone industry as a whole. There are many things lacking here.
If you've ever been overseas to a developed Asian country, you'll understand. If you haven't, I don't blame you for your shortsightedness.
I think one of the problems with the US market is the way that it was initially set up.
When cell phones started breaking out into mainstream use, service providers such as Sprint, AT&T, the Bell's, all had contracts with specific cell phone manufacturers such as LG, Samsung, Motorola. Alot of phones are sold exclusively by one provider and are not available with another service.
In asia, this is usually not the case. Many phones use a SIM card (similar to cingular), which really allows the phone to be connected to a network. The phones are sold separately and are not associated with only one service provider. Thus, you can use almost any cell phone with any provider. In this way, it makes the cell phone manufacturers compete with the design and functionality of their new phones, and for service providers to compete only with their quality and cost of connection service. You can buy a phone separately and choose any service provider. If you choose to leave that provider, you can keep your phone and go to another service provider. it's that simple.
In America, if you really want that specific certain phone, you have to buy it from Verizon or other. In the same way, you have to buy a NEW phone if you decide to switch providers.
The fact that American companies do not do this, is an injustice to the american people. For America to claim to be the archetypical capitalistic economy yet still stifle innovation for the accrueing of profit is something we shouldn't stand for. I doubt anyone here is happy with their level of service.
When Sega finally bit the bullet with the Dreamcast, there was already another competitor ready to take its place--the Playstation2. But the dreamcast still pushed the innovation a bit more and caused other game developers and platform developers to adjust to the limits that the Dreamcast pushed forward.
I'm not saying that Sony shouldn't be a loser. I know that Sony's business tactics have been less than favorable, but you have to remember that Nintendo also behaved in the same way when they ruled the gaming market. I'm seeing now that Sony is experiencing the same thing as Nintendo did, except that its not the developeres turning against Sony, it's the consumers.
The Super Nintendo, when released, had competition. Now the Gensis and Saturn failed miserably, but if the PS1 didn't challenge the N64, innovation in the gaming industry would not be where it is today.
It's not that I want to the PS3 to win, but I don't want Sony to lose so badly that they'd pull out of the gaming industry. It would be a loss to all of us, since Sony is one of the foremost innovative developers in the gaming industry (along with Nintendo and Microsoft).
I don't like Sony. I have a Wii. But i dont see how Sony abandoning it's gaming division would be a good thing for the industry.
If the PS3 does fail, (which I highly doubt), then it's not just bad for Sony, but for the gaming industry. In a capitalistic world economy, the more competition, the better. If the PS3, Wii, and XBox360 all do well, then the winners are the consumers.
When Nintendo refused to switch to a CD based game format, Sony took up the initiative and the PS1 became one of the most successful platforms. When Nintendo released the Gamecube, it pushed forth with an innovative controller as well as the idea of "party" games which is the most fun with 4 controllers. The Xbox followed suit and the PS2 released an adapter, but Gamecube's games were still unmatched. Now all current platforms support at least 4 simultaneous players.
Xbox implemented internet gaming and interaction and now Nintendo and Sony are still trying to catch up. This market requires more competition because it breeds advancement and innovation. I'm kind of excited to see what the PS3 has to offer, but the price is still prohibitive for me to experience firsthand.
So in summary. Stop wishing for the demise of the PS3. It'll hurt you more than it'll hurt Sony.
CIOs and IT departments limit and control software on their computers by taking 2 months to install MS Office on my desktop.
I've had IT departments take 3 weeks to "install" software on my workstation, when all they had to was add shortcuts to my start menu and map the path to software on remote servers. It makes you wonder if they spend more time reading my email and slashdot posts than actual IT work.
Wow. Yeah that totally helps. So when he hits a pedestrian crossing the street or a car pulling out of driveway, (this was a RESIDENTIAL AREA), then he can whip out his past credentials and explain to them why he had the right to speed. Especially if he had no reason to other than to get somewhere quickly.
The case you mentioned is different in that he had no other choice. (there was no shoulder). The speeding cop was in a residential area. unless his sirens were on, it was most likely not official business.
In Troy, NY an off duty cop who was intoxicated drove his car into my friend's garage at 3 am. He left the car while it lit on fire and continued to burn the place down. Now I'm sure his "official" training really helped him there. He drove drunk because he could right? I'm sorry but your argument is completely fallacious. IT'S NOT ABOUT WHAT YOU CAN OR CANNOT DO, BUT WHAT IS BENEFICIAL OR NOT. if society only functioned on what you could or could not get away with, you would have complete anarchy, because the police would not be able to catch everyone. End of Story.
Although the phone may be great for its simplicity and may also function well, I wonder what Motorola has in mind?
One: The phone will be cheap, but how cheap? Is it really affordable for the common user in a developing country? Does it really bring technology that isn't yet necessary and make it available to everyone?
Two: Is Motorola just trying establish a base in these developing countries? While it may seem altrustic to offer cheaper phones, Motorola is a commercial enterprise and cares about one thing more than anything else: The Bottom Line ($). I can see them establishing brand recognition and ubiquity in an emerging market, so that when the middle class grows, Motorola will already be the "name" to have.
Just as they did with the Nintendo Wii and Xbox360, Microsoft is getting free publicity.
With Firefox just releasing their new version, it has eclipsed the launch of IE7. By sending a cake, which is sure to getting bloggers and slashdot to post, Microsoft directs the attention back on them. Also, it's good publicity. But we all know, no publicity is bad publicity.
plug it in the USB interface,
authenticate the disc,
place it in the drive,
burn dvd to hard drive.
upload torrent file.
snub MPAA,RIAA lather, rinse, repeat
The Real Question is this...
on
IT and Divorce?
·
· Score: 1
If you were to quit your job and go into another field, do you think that she'd stay with you?
If not, look elsewhere. The problem lies deeper than your occupation.
"Sir, could you tell me how a 14 year old was able to obtain a game not rated for his age group?"
"Cha-ching! sorry.. what? video games? Oh, I bought that game for him. Wasn't my fault. I didn't it'd make him shoot me. I'm utterly devastated, (to the amount of $600m)."
Slashdot Mirror
This sounds like a post made with little facts and mostly conjecture.
Yes teachers, administrators, and principals are in unions and are protected, but layoffs can still occur within union contracts. People can still get fired, (of course, it's a lot harder), but unions understand that in order for a business, (in this case--a school district), there will be layoffs and firings.
In most cases, the teachers get no severance package as a corporate employee would, and because of their little salary, there is minimal cushion following the layoffs.
Your comparison between the corporate world and the education does highlight differences, but you exaggerate the influence and power of the unions. Labor unions can lobby, but they can't singlehandedly dictate economics. Nor can they grow money on trees.
an explanation why cell phone service providers are charging ludicrous fees for text messages of 160 characters?
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
you're right. it does sound overly simplistic.
when you have a family and a home with kids in school, it's not easy to just pick up and move so that you can get paid for overtime. If I had a wife who was also in the midst of her career, would it be fair for her to drop her goals and professional capital because I don't agree with CA's labor laws?
Also, asking kids who are older, to pick up and leave their lives behind is also no easy task. A house, that you may have paid off already, is also a reason for not leaving. And maybe you just love the state of California and enjoy living there.
maybe you're one of those single young guys who don't mind working the additional overtime for free. Why don't you move somewhere else so that we can demand overtime?
In order to get paid for overtime, lawmakers would have to do some work to even qualify for it.
That makes no sense. How does buying cell phones separately "destroy" the market? If you have any supporting evidence, then please provide it.
/. but I'll reiterate what's been said already.
I, on other hand, do have evidence that suggests otherwise. This was talked about in previous articles of
Consider Asia, in which many countries have separated the cell phone manufacturing industry from the cell phone service providers. Phones there are much cheaper for several reasons:
1. The standard of living there is lower.
2. There's more competition between cell phone manufacturers because of the ability to buy any phone for any network provider.
The wireless provider plans are much cheaper with either no contracts or short contracts because: 1. They have to compete with other providers based solely on service instead of the phones that they offer exclusively.
2. No phones are "locked" meaning that the market is more open and competitive.
With these facts please tell me how you reached your opinion and how it's the fault of the consumer and not the industry? If I can remember, the industry formed the business model, not the customers.
I think the law requires that the user and receiver have an expectation of privacy in those e-mails. If the employer notifies all users that all email is monitored and should only be used for work-related purposes, then the users has no viable expectation of privacy which would protect any priveleged personal information in their work emails. If you are using work resources to achieve personal goals, then you pretty much surrender that expectation.
Space will never be the same.
Because California wants to protect it's precious and clean air.
if you can even call it 'air'
I think you're missing the point. This isn't a rip on the iPhone, but on the American cell phone industry as a whole. There are many things lacking here.
If you've ever been overseas to a developed Asian country, you'll understand. If you haven't, I don't blame you for your shortsightedness.
I think one of the problems with the US market is the way that it was initially set up. When cell phones started breaking out into mainstream use, service providers such as Sprint, AT&T, the Bell's, all had contracts with specific cell phone manufacturers such as LG, Samsung, Motorola. Alot of phones are sold exclusively by one provider and are not available with another service. In asia, this is usually not the case. Many phones use a SIM card (similar to cingular), which really allows the phone to be connected to a network. The phones are sold separately and are not associated with only one service provider. Thus, you can use almost any cell phone with any provider. In this way, it makes the cell phone manufacturers compete with the design and functionality of their new phones, and for service providers to compete only with their quality and cost of connection service. You can buy a phone separately and choose any service provider. If you choose to leave that provider, you can keep your phone and go to another service provider. it's that simple. In America, if you really want that specific certain phone, you have to buy it from Verizon or other. In the same way, you have to buy a NEW phone if you decide to switch providers. The fact that American companies do not do this, is an injustice to the american people. For America to claim to be the archetypical capitalistic economy yet still stifle innovation for the accrueing of profit is something we shouldn't stand for. I doubt anyone here is happy with their level of service.
... and mankind has hit a new low.
When Sega finally bit the bullet with the Dreamcast, there was already another competitor ready to take its place--the Playstation2. But the dreamcast still pushed the innovation a bit more and caused other game developers and platform developers to adjust to the limits that the Dreamcast pushed forward.
I'm not saying that Sony shouldn't be a loser. I know that Sony's business tactics have been less than favorable, but you have to remember that Nintendo also behaved in the same way when they ruled the gaming market. I'm seeing now that Sony is experiencing the same thing as Nintendo did, except that its not the developeres turning against Sony, it's the consumers.
The Super Nintendo, when released, had competition. Now the Gensis and Saturn failed miserably, but if the PS1 didn't challenge the N64, innovation in the gaming industry would not be where it is today.
It's not that I want to the PS3 to win, but I don't want Sony to lose so badly that they'd pull out of the gaming industry. It would be a loss to all of us, since Sony is one of the foremost innovative developers in the gaming industry (along with Nintendo and Microsoft).
I don't like Sony. I have a Wii. But i dont see how Sony abandoning it's gaming division would be a good thing for the industry.
If the PS3 does fail, (which I highly doubt), then it's not just bad for Sony, but for the gaming industry. In a capitalistic world economy, the more competition, the better. If the PS3, Wii, and XBox360 all do well, then the winners are the consumers.
When Nintendo refused to switch to a CD based game format, Sony took up the initiative and the PS1 became one of the most successful platforms. When Nintendo released the Gamecube, it pushed forth with an innovative controller as well as the idea of "party" games which is the most fun with 4 controllers. The Xbox followed suit and the PS2 released an adapter, but Gamecube's games were still unmatched. Now all current platforms support at least 4 simultaneous players.
Xbox implemented internet gaming and interaction and now Nintendo and Sony are still trying to catch up. This market requires more competition because it breeds advancement and innovation. I'm kind of excited to see what the PS3 has to offer, but the price is still prohibitive for me to experience firsthand.
So in summary. Stop wishing for the demise of the PS3. It'll hurt you more than it'll hurt Sony.
...and thinking of their parent's votes....
CIOs and IT departments limit and control software on their computers by taking 2 months to install MS Office on my desktop. I've had IT departments take 3 weeks to "install" software on my workstation, when all they had to was add shortcuts to my start menu and map the path to software on remote servers. It makes you wonder if they spend more time reading my email and slashdot posts than actual IT work.
Wow. Yeah that totally helps. So when he hits a pedestrian crossing the street or a car pulling out of driveway, (this was a RESIDENTIAL AREA), then he can whip out his past credentials and explain to them why he had the right to speed. Especially if he had no reason to other than to get somewhere quickly.
The case you mentioned is different in that he had no other choice. (there was no shoulder). The speeding cop was in a residential area. unless his sirens were on, it was most likely not official business.
In Troy, NY an off duty cop who was intoxicated drove his car into my friend's garage at 3 am. He left the car while it lit on fire and continued to burn the place down. Now I'm sure his "official" training really helped him there. He drove drunk because he could right? I'm sorry but your argument is completely fallacious. IT'S NOT ABOUT WHAT YOU CAN OR CANNOT DO, BUT WHAT IS BENEFICIAL OR NOT. if society only functioned on what you could or could not get away with, you would have complete anarchy, because the police would not be able to catch everyone. End of Story.
Although the phone may be great for its simplicity and may also function well, I wonder what Motorola has in mind?
One: The phone will be cheap, but how cheap? Is it really affordable for the common user in a developing country? Does it really bring technology that isn't yet necessary and make it available to everyone?
Two: Is Motorola just trying establish a base in these developing countries? While it may seem altrustic to offer cheaper phones, Motorola is a commercial enterprise and cares about one thing more than anything else: The Bottom Line ($). I can see them establishing brand recognition and ubiquity in an emerging market, so that when the middle class grows, Motorola will already be the "name" to have.
Just as they did with the Nintendo Wii and Xbox360, Microsoft is getting free publicity.
With Firefox just releasing their new version, it has eclipsed the launch of IE7. By sending a cake, which is sure to getting bloggers and slashdot to post, Microsoft directs the attention back on them. Also, it's good publicity. But we all know, no publicity is bad publicity.
SLASHDOTTERS YOU TOOK THE BAIT!
WAIT. ISOLATIONISM IS BAD?!
my school banned tag when i was in grade school as well. that was like 20 years ago in Los Angeles
plug it in the USB interface,
authenticate the disc,
place it in the drive,
burn dvd to hard drive.
upload torrent file.
snub MPAA,RIAA
lather, rinse, repeat
If you were to quit your job and go into another field, do you think that she'd stay with you? If not, look elsewhere. The problem lies deeper than your occupation.
sounds like management is banking on the wii doing better than the ps3. they most likely swiped the majority of the units.
"Sir, could you tell me how a 14 year old was able to obtain a game not rated for his age group?" "Cha-ching! sorry.. what? video games? Oh, I bought that game for him. Wasn't my fault. I didn't it'd make him shoot me. I'm utterly devastated, (to the amount of $600m)."