It is not news. I work for an embedded software company and we have operating systems that boot in well under a second. Its not a big deal. Really. Its just a pleasant side effect of the fact that a lot of embedded operating systems don't really have to do a whole lot on boot.
Parent is correct, it is almost universally agreed by reputable economists that the great depression was caused by DEFLATION and the fed keeping rates too high. (not inflation and cheap money as the poorly informed grandparent claims) Additionally, grandparent made the ridiculous claim that recessions are worsened by wasteful spending when in fact they are the result of underutilization of resources, even wasteful spending helps end them. I guess this is more of a computer nerd than finance nerd site, but really, the guy contradicted very basic economics in several places and got modded +5, thats nuts.
Eh, not quite. The colonists were already angry about the high tea import tax. The fact that the crown decided that everyone should have to pay it except the favored British East India Company is what sent the colonists over the edge. The anger was rooted in the high taxes, they just took it out on the only guys who didnt have to pay tax.
My first thought was that if you start using words like "all OSes" then that includes smaller OSes that are mathematically provably correct and used in the safety critical industry. For example: http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/11/green_hills_sof.html
I dont see Apple/MS/Linux/any other huge OS putting out proofs of their OSes correctness anytime soon.
Saddam Hussein was a bad guy for sure, but that whole shredder thing was a classic example of an inflammatory story that is later proved false in the run up to a war.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/feb/25/iraq.iraqandthemedia
You are correct that Apple is not in the same position, but their behaviour is worse than that of MS. They try to lock people into their hardware if they want to use Apple's OS, once upon a time MS was considered the 'good guys' by some because they let you run whatever hardware you wanted. Apple tries to lock you into their little itunes/iwhatever combo.
When you get right down to it, the fact that Apple is not an abusive monopoly isn't for lack of trying, they just haven't been as successful as MS.
No way could I now start discussing that in a public forum
Your posting history says otherwise.
I keep seeing people point this out, but I believe they are missing the point to a large degree. Youtube for a large segment of listeners isn't advertising for buying a song, its a replacement for it. Why would I spend money and go through the hassle of actually buying a CD when I can have any song/video I want from almost any popular band playing within a matter of seconds on youtube? Its easier and cheaper. (and perfectly legal) Personally, I haven't actually bought music in years for this exact reason and I know that there are a lot of other people out there like me. Statistics for album sales certainly seem to back up my view that this is common. (yeah I know, someone is going to chime in about how sales are abysmal because music isn't as good as it was back in their day. The ratio of good music to bad hasn't changed much in the last few decades, can we please not pretend that the dramatic decrease in music sales is not related to the internet?)
Giving away something for free (or dirt cheap) isn't much of a business model. I do not blame them for taking their ball and going home.
And whats wrong with telling the workers that? Seems like important information to me. There are a lot of businesses that truly CANT survive with a union. If I were a worker considering unionizing I would want to know whether or not my employer would be able to stay in business if I did so.
Would you rather have a situation where workers never heard the other side and then suddenly a little after unionizing the business went kaput and they were all out of jobs?
Either the organizers are acting within the law, and not coercing the signatories, or the management can give the workers to express their "uncoerced" opinions via secret ballot. So what's the problem?
Why are you putting "uncoerced" in air quotes? ITS A SECRET BALLOT. Management cant coerce employees into voting a certain way cause they dont know how an individual voted!
What the pro union folks are advocating is NOT a secret ballot and IS open to pressure and coercion to varying degrees.
The actual problem is that the EFCA takes away management's opportunity to spend a month preaching about how unionization will kill the company. That's why they're afraid of it, not out of any concern for the sanctity of the secret ballot.
Many times thats actually true. Whats wrong with employees hearing the other side of the story? If they really want a union that bad watching an infomercial before a secret ballot wont change anything. I dont understand this pro-union attitude that no opposing views should ever be heard by employees.
Who says they aren't?
Well they have chosen to go after eliminating the secret ballot instead of putting in place a system like this, so I think that their actions say that they aren't in favor of taking this route instead of killing the secret ballot.
The unions aren't against secret ballots. What they're trying to do is eliminate a step in the process which is there for the sole purpose of preventing them from forming a union.
Um, yes, thats exactly why that step is there. And thats a good thing. Can you imagine if a politician said "I am not against secret ballots, what I am trying to do is eliminate a step in the process which is there for the sole purpose of preventing me from staying in office"?
Thats what secret ballot elections are for, to make sure its what people REALLY want. It is necessary to have that check to make sure that the union isnt forcing itself on people who dont want it. You have to protect pro union as well as anti union workers.
1) This legislation does not eliminate secret ballots. Secret ballots are still an option. But if over half of workers are ready to unionize, why should employers get the right to dismiss that, demand a secret ballot, and get a month where they can force employees to attend lectures on why unionizing will eat their children?
Oh please, thats exacty what it does. If the union says "hey we got the signatures, no election" then there wont be an election. Only the people trying to organize can request a secret ballot. Translation: It will never happen.
Secret ballots are necessary to protect both workers who want to unionize and workers who dont. If pro union people can choose not to have a secret ballot at their discretion then that is as big of a problem as if management can choose not to have a secret ballot.
Yes, I am talking about American plants. It wasnt "high union wages" that destroyed the big three, its:
1) The legacy costs of the big three are substantially higher because they agreed to crazy union demands decades ago. The current union wages are actually lower now, but that doesnt begin to compensate for the difference in legacy costs.
2) Productivity at the big three is extremely low because of the union. If it takes half as many man hours to build a toyota car because their workers are much better due to the fact that management is not hamstrung by the union then they an afford to pay them more. Even in blue collar jobs that "anyone" can do, there is a big difference between a good employee and a bad employee.
Enough with the bullshit dishonesty. You don't care about secret ballots. You just hate unions. At least the unions are honest about their intentions.
Wasnt it you who was decrying namecalling in another thread?
I got an idea. This may be radical, but why don't you try treating employees well? Pay them a decent wage, give them good benefits and don't shit all over them. Maybe then they wouldn't want to form a union, and the vote would fail on it's own initiative.
I think many would argue that this is exactly what most non-union companies do. Examples: Publix workers and Toyota factory workers. Both have substantially higher morale than their unionized competitors. Both have successfully resisted countless union drives. And both have higher entry level pay.
Great, some compromising. How about making it illegal for the corporation to see the names of the people who signed the petition too while we're at it?
Not necessarily a bad idea. So why arent unions in favor of this? Why are they so eager to resort to eliminating secret ballots?
FORTRAN is not a flower but a weed -- it is hardy, occasionally blooms, and grows in every computer. -- A.J. Perlis
