Comment Re:The real reason. (Score 1) 72
13% of Proton launches (46 of 355) have ended in failure - it's not a very impressive record.
13% of Proton launches (46 of 355) have ended in failure - it's not a very impressive record.
Because if there's one thing Russia is famous for, it's QA
Absolutely true. Soyuz too has had tons of third stage failures. It's something that just keeps biting them.
We are entitled to being paid for not working. That is what is morally right. Of course the Republicans are stupid and think you should be required to work for what you are paid. That is morally wrong, and it goes against the concept of basic income.
No, you're a moron making a strawman argument.
If you think that working for a company for years, to get laid off and have zero severance is in any way a sensible thing, then you're an idiot who thinks the rest of the world should take it up the ass to benefit corporations.
Because I don't hear any Republicans saying how evil it is when CEOs get multi-million dollar severance packages for being incompetent. They act like it's well deserved.
But let's not pretend that this is a case of "getting paid for nothing". This is a case of "corporations don't get to fuck employees over for their own benefit".
Since there are Republican candidates who have received massive corporate payouts when they lost their job
You're a moron. The rest world doesn't think in terms of "Republican" and "Democrat" -- just you guys.
They also don't think in terms of being 100% douchebag capitalist, or 100% socialist. Because they're not morons incapable of understanding the whole picture of how to balance society's needs with those of corporations.
Corporations aren't some magical construct -- it's a bunch of people looking out for their own interests. That doesn't mean they should be entitled to do that at someone else's expense.
Except the Republicans seem to champion the idea of douchebag capitalism as some form of moral idea, and then make stupid statements like you just did.
Your translation doesn't seem to mention a militia at all...
And yours doesn't mention 'the people'. That mention is rather a big deal, I think.
The 'well regulated milita' is known as a prefactory clause. It explains part, not necessarily all, of the reasoning for the following rule. Which is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'shall not be infringed'.
Personally, to me that means that the government can't prevent you from purchasing, keeping, or carrying firearms short of conviction(or commitment) in a court of law.
Consider it like the right to have an abortion - but the right to keep arms is actually in the bill of rights. It's #2 even.
Consider what the pro-life types are trying to do with abortion - same darn things as the anti-gun types are. Waiting periods - make it a pain in the butt, discourage it. Not allowed past a certain point. Gun Permits - equivalent to the briefings/propaganda that they're trying to push on women seeking an abortion. Extra fees compared with forbidding insurance from paying in order to increase the cost. Banning specific versions. Etc...
The 'shall not be infringed' part should be a high standard against all of the above. Road blocks and detours when it comes to 'arms' should NOT be allowed. Despite this, there's a lot of unconstitutional law out there, and some of it has been in place for quite some time. It's a constant battle to protect our rights - freedom of speech, to bear arms, to privacy, religion, etc...
(I'm pro-choice and pro-gun btw).
Your interpretation is quaint, and incorrect, at least it didn't mean that until 2008, Columbia v. Heller [thedailybeast.com]
Isn't this self-contradicting? 'quaint' ~ 'old fashioned'. A decision as recent as 2008 is very much not old fashioned.
The public's understanding of the 2nd Amendment started to be distorted by the NRA [politico.com] early in the last century.
The NRA wasn't a lobbying organization until late in the last century, so this statement is incorrect. The NRA ended up becoming a lobbying organization due to the spread of gun control laws resulting in it's membership having it create a lobbying branch.
The NRA has been filling the minds of gun owners with an interpretation that was never intended by the Founders for some time,
Given what I've read in sources like the federalist papers, I think that the NRA version is closer to reality than yours.
That being said, your rights can be restricted through 'due process of law', IE conviction by a court and jury of your peers. So I'm okay with things like the NICS check, prohibition by felons. I think that the post-facto punishment of misdemeanor DV charges is a violation, because there's a very good chance that people like police officers who were convicted of such things, usually by pleading guilty, long before this rule was in effect, would have fought it in court and won at least a percentage of the time if the rule had been in place, or they knew it was coming, before they pled guilty.
Are you somehow suggesting that in a failing corporation, the people who were laid off without proper severance should fall on their swords to protect other people? Why? Some noble sacrifice for the company?
Honestly, pick one
But some countries, even though they allow greedy capitalism, they also have laws to protect employees. Which is a good thing -- sure, run a business, be profitable. Awesome!! Everybody wins, life is good.
But don't think that entitles you to treat your employees like serfs who should be grateful to work for a company who will screw them over at the first chance.
Would you sacrifice yourself for a company who laid you off, or for its remaining employees? Because if you would you're an idiot.
What you're advocating is: for the benefit of a company who has laid you off, who (in violation of the law) has failed to pay severance
Again, if you would do that you are an idiot.
Honestly, who the hell is going to perform a charitable act to benefit the company who laid them off?
If they didn't have the cash to pay out separation pay, what were they paying the remaining employees with in another month. The shareholders clearly let them walk into that trap by not properly structuring the layoff to match cash flow.
No, it means that this wasn't the first time they'd been in this mess, and the shareholders were more willing to cut their losses than double down on losing even more.
This wasn't the first time Mandriva struggled to make ends meet. It had some epic troubles in 2010, right before Croset joined, that resulted in layoffs and the exit of its founder.
After so many years of struggle, the shareholders didn't want to put up more money to save Mandriva, and the company was forced into bankruptcy,
This company sounds like it had been struggling for a long time, and would have failed anyway.
In which case the employees who said "give me my damned money now" spared themselves from being the ones with no chair when the music stopped.
What the shareholders didn't do is throw good money after bad.
The ex-employees got paid, and in fact as CEO makes clear had the court allowed say 'installment payments' or 'deferred payments' rather than 'all the money right now' they may have been able to hang on, but no.
Or, they might have still failed, and the employees would have been left behind with nothing.
These 'greedy ex-employees' wanted their money & 'be damned with who gets hurt'.
Who gives a fuck? They've been laid off, they owe nothing to the company, and getting left holding bag isn't their problem.
That doesn't change the fact the company was legally obligated to pay them.
Your obvious belief that the company owes any single indivdiual employee anything
First off, it's the fucking law that they have to pay severance. So, by law, they sure as hell do owe employees something
as opposed to 'in the best interests of the company & as many employees as we can save' is telling.
Are you actually giving me the "needs of the many" crap with regards to a fucking corporation? That employees should forego their severance from a failing company for the "greater good"? Because now you're talking bullshit out of both sides of your mouth.
Why the fuck should any employee put the "best interests of the company & as many employees"? You think employees should give their employers one final act of altruism and sacrifice? For what? Shareholder fucking value?
The corporation doesn't give a fuck about your welfare, they have no business expecting you to give a damn about theirs.
Your selfish & its all about you.
You're fucking right I am. I'm selfish in the exact same way the corporations are -- I'm here to look out for myself. The only difference is in civilized countries there are laws which say you have to give employees severance so that the greedy, selfish assholes who run corporations can't just shit on their employees for their own gain.
Isn't "enlightened self interest" the whole fucking point of capitalism?
Not bending over so the corporation which laid you off can skip out on paying you what they owe you in the hopes that they might come out of it
Fuck that.
When the company began to run into problems from external sources the laws of the country we had set up in did not give us the flexibility we needed to continue trading and maintain at least some of the worker's jobs.
No, if you read TFA, it really comes down to the people they had "restructured" out of jobs found that the company lacked the liquidity to pay them their legally required severance, and a court agreed to pay them so they didn't become victims of a failing company trying to buy time.
Sorry, but if you think the employees should roll over and get fucked and not get paid so that company can try to stay in business
You may think it's perfectly reasonable to expect employees to get screwed over to keep the company going, but the rest of the world doesn't.
These kinds of laws exist precisely so you can't just fire people for free. America may think at-will employment because it lets corporations be greedy douchebags -- but the rest of the world has pretty much figured out that screwing over the employees to benefit the corporation is a stupid fucking idea.
Because they probably would have gone under anyway. Any employee who would voluntarily get screwed to keep the company going is an idiot. Because they sure as hell won't do it for you.
Boo hoo. A corporation didn't get to leave its employees holding the bag.
No sympathy whatsoever.
Yeah, no kidding
Because I can't tell you have many companies have folded, leaving the employees with nothing, but a CEO who has managed to come out of it quite well.
Sorry, but you're the CEO
Mandriva SA went out of business following a few court decisions upon action of former employees, who had been dismissed as a part of the restructuring process in 2013. As the labour laws are very generous towards the employees in France, those court decisions forced the company to announce bankruptcy, as the cash available was not sufficient to cover the amounts due and the shareholders did not want to cover them.
In other words, you were about to go out of business, and instead of leaving the employees with nothing they took what was theirs before you stiffed them and went under anyway.
Sorry, but employers don't give a damn about us. I see no reason to give a damn about them
Sounds like he'd have happily left them with nothing if he'd had the chance. I can't see any reason why the former employees would have done anything but fight for their severance.
(Please Putin, don''t feed my baby to the dingoes) )
and you understand that government mandated loans drove the cost of those schools up right?
That's right.
It's cheap to have the government set up a school like City College and pay the costs directly.
It's much more expensive to have the government give (or loan) people money, and tell them to buy their education from the private sector in the free market.
In Soviet Russia, internet trolls you
It's OK, 1987 is too busy snorting cocaine and being a selfish bastard to notice.
E = MC ** 2 +- 3db
