I have an application for this where I'm using 365 to 395 nm older style to attract bugs efficiently.
Come on, give us a few details. Are you collecting the bugs for research or are you using the lights as bait for your backyard zapper? Or are you collecting bugs to feed to your pet iguanas?
That's too tantalizing a statement for you not to tell us a little more.
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.
All he did was facilitate transactions among consenting adults.
Illegal transactions. And he got a cut from every deal made.
So arrest and prosecute the federal agent for attempted murder. He's the one who should be in jail. Not Ulbricht.
You don't think facilitating the transaction for a hitman for a percentage of the price should be a crime?
Remember, Ulbricht got a cut of the money for every single drug transaction on Silk Road. It's as if he bought a downtown building and rented it out to drug dealers (and hit men) and got a cut for every single transaction.
I know there's a belief that the Internet is a magical place where laws should not apply, because it's digital!, but that's just not how it works.
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.
The Second Amendment clearly (to anyone who understands how English was used at the time) forbids the Federal Government from interfering, in any way, with obtaining and carrying weapons. (infringe ~ "even meddle with the fringes of")
Your interpretation is quaint, and incorrect, at least it didn't mean that until 2008, Columbia v. Heller
there is not a single word about an individual right to a gun for self-defense in the notes from the Constitutional Convention
Nor in the Constitution!
The public's understanding of the 2nd Amendment started to be distorted by the NRA early in the last century. The NRA has been filling the minds of gun owners with an interpretation that was never intended by the Founders for some time, so no one can blame you for your incorrect interpretation when a propaganda machine like the NRA has been bombarding you with selective truths and out-right lies.
Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia.
That includes gun trafficing, because stopping gun sales makes it harder to exercise the right.
Wow... THAT is OUT THERE. Of course, you are completely mistaken, and this bold statement of yours is wildly, dangerously inaccurate. Gun regulation is legal, and necessary.
Weirdly there's no evidence of that claim, and the government decided not to try and prosecute for that.
Two different things. The government also decided not to charge Al Capone for murder.
The article itself mentions that five of the attempts to hire a hitman were actually scams targeted at Ulbricht
And he fell for all of them.
"Attempting to hire a hitman" is not exactly like falling for someone selling a fake Rolex in Times Square.
All he did was facilitate transactions among consenting adults.
That's what I keep saying about bookies and pimps!
Unfortunately, one of the guys with whom Ulbricht was facilitating a transaction to kill someone was a federal agent.
I won't even get into the issue of the Anarchist claims that ANY government is necessarily illegitimate, coercively imposing its will on people who did not pre-approve this and are not attempting, themselves, to coerce others.
I think you just got into it.
Don't want to join the "rewards program?!?" -- great! You'll be spending more than I do every time you visit the store b/c I have a rewards card and you don't. You are subsidizing my purchases. Thank you!
Your "rewards program" allows your privacy to be violated. Your store thanks you.
Remember, you're personal information, spending habits, movement information, location, etc are worth something. And you're giving it away for pennies on the dollar. Have you ever read the EULA on your "rewards program"?
PT Barnum had a word for people who thought they were getting something for nothing.
Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.
