People always talk about the free market, but one thing they miss is that the free market requires rational actors. Expanding the companies' infrastructures may or may not be rational, but this depends on whether the rational acting consumers demand and will pay for it if they do.
Generally, we as consumers put up with waaay too much shit, and continue to buy products anyway, allowing the companies to whatever they want.
It seems to me like having nationwide 4G coverage would be a HUGE selling point for a telco, even in sparsely populated areas (we're everywhere, even while you're sleeping in the woods!!!), but they know they don't have to until forced.
Also, as a former telco employee, classifying a service as a utility should not be done lightly. The portion of your bill that goes to taxes on utilities are fucking nuts (worse than what you see) and while it's harder to price gouge in the short run, there's a reason a land line costs $60 after taxes. Also, the intent of guidelines can be skirted pretty easily, which is why calling customer service results in a sales pitch, and why unless you specifically ask for a "1FR line" you get the package deal with long distance and call waiting blah blah.
I think that your way is a good way to put it, although it all really comes down to semantics. All rights come from the people at some level, because we have to think them up and (here's the important bit) agree on them. Even if you believe god handed down human rights, there are a great many humans who don't believe in your god, so you still have to communicate and agree with them on what "human rights" boil down to.
It's difficult to just say "Here is the list of human rights that humans get. Done!" because even the basic ones change sometimes, and there are some pretty high-level concepts now found to now be fundamental. It used to be that your only "rights" depended on your ability or your army's ability to fight, run, or sneak; what the hell was freedom of speech back then? Now, we have all these fancy lists and pursuits and whatnot, which is better than good, it's great! Still, our rights were and (super important) are determined by mutual contracts with each other (i.e. you can have the right to free speech, but all the rest of us do too), and we absolutely must work to defend existing agreements and the ability to add new cultural agreements. They really are the only things propping our current rights up, and are the only way to expand and improve human rights in the future.
In any case, you're right. We absolutely have to agree that all humans deserve the same rights as any other humans, and that these rights are protected for all of us.
I previously worked for a company that interfaced with police agencies all over the country (we were there database software provider). I can tell you that there's really not as much bad shit going on as you think. Yeah, there's some, but most cops just want to punch in and punch out safely, just like you. I can't compare to the UK.
There are so many police officers in this country that of COURSE you're gonna get some racists, nutjobs, or power-trippers, just like any other large enough group of people. Getting up in arms over police abuses isn't the right fight, as those cops are degenerate assholes anyway and would be committing crimes if they were cops or not (the position of authority does make many crimes more egregious though). The right fight is going after the stupid laws and lawmakers that allow these behaviors to continue without removing these officers.
All dead, and replaced by Mexican mafia doppelgangers.
Residents of Greenland.
Trick question. These do not exist; Greenland is a rumor spread by the Mexican mafia. Proof? If there were residents of Greenland, some of them would have been killed by the Mexican mafia.
Members of the Japanese Royal Family.
Are you kidding? The Japanese Royal Family is so totally made up of Mexican mafia zombies; they were the first ones to go. Japan is the fastest way to get H to the Mongols.
"Holy shit, O, come look at this post!! I was algo-writhing about the tubings, and ran across the most refusing comment the internet has ever seen!! What should I do with it, do you think?"
"Shit, I don't care, U. Give it a higher ranking for searches coming out of Uruguay, or something. Just make sure you catalog it; G won't like it if anything slips through the cracks."
What if I provide a citation for you? As in, "I am hapslappy_2222, and I endorse this message." (Rider endorsement: I also support legalized marijuana and public executions). Now, if someone endorses ME, and YOU endorse THAT person, we'll have an unassailable tautology of truth.
Yay for applying political science principles to real science!!
The second usage is definitely not "healthy" (I actually think "healthy" is a silly adjective for the word "skepticism" anyway, but I digress) for exploration of facts, while the first usage means, exactly, to "follow the data and not make any assumptions before you analyze it".
I agree with you that your job should be something you enjoy. That's actually part of the other side of the argument; to many of us, it seems plausible that an exciting (risky?) and busy (job security!!!) software change could make your job more interesting. It also seems like a big risk to quit, and then go out and find new work now.
I don't think the guy's a douche, but I'd have to think really hard about making a decision like this without doing everything I could to fix the problem before quitting. Then again, I have a family to support (not sure about his), so I may not have the same freedom to take risks. Or, maybe I'm more risk averse after losing all the equity in my house. Either way - "douche" is too strong, but "be careful" is not.
The options aren't limited to 2, and none of them are mutually exclusive. You could also:
-Determine why the change is being rolled out, and fight it if it doesn't make business or technical sense (I imagine a senior developer must be able to give input and, more importantly, has colleagues that agree with your assessment). If it really is a bad decision, and not just disagreeable new software, you could end up a hero by saving the company from x mega-disasters costing y truckloads of dollars (you do have the degree of damage calculated using a presentable formula, right?)
-If the new software choice does make sense, learn the new architecture as it is deployed, expanding other abilities on top of your ERP experience. You were smart enough to learn ERP, and now you have a brand new skill to market, too. That's like having a great business ass, but now you got a free business boob job, too. Now you're a multi-talented hero, and even future companies that want to do the business sex to you will enjoy this.
-If the change does not make sense, insulate yourself from blame by involving yourself rather than getting all snooty about the smelly new MS software. If it really goes horribly badly, it's more likely they'll need your reliable ass to fix it than fire you. Again, hero. Maybe you don't want to save the day, which is fine, but there's money to be made in hero-ing.
If none of these options are available or are unlikely to even be considered at your company, the issue simply a software change. You should leave because it's a shitty place to work, not because they made a poor decision.
You maybe need to learn to stand up for yourself a bit better. It always makes me wonder why people are willing to quit over stuff like this. If you're planning on being gone anyway, isn't it worth going in and pushing for what you want prior to bailing out?
There's been a couple of times in my career that I thought I was going to be separating from a company, but I went in and got what I wanted instead. There was one time I didn't get what I wanted, and guess what? I wasn't any worse off than if I'd just quit, plus my former employer knew exactly why I was leaving.
If you're not happy at your job, you owe it to yourself to try to make it better, and asking for improvements is easier than asking for a raise anyway.
I'd actually go you one further and say "some people you refer to" instead of "religious people you refer to".
Religion doesn't necessarily have have anything to do with opinions on abortive stem cell harvesting, research, or usage, for either side. Here are two anecdotal examples:
1- My mother is very religious, but thinks abortive stem cells should be harvested since the embryos/fetuses are lost already. Her position is one of salvaging what possible good can come from what is essentially a complete tragedy.
2- I'm atheist, but I think there are plenty of other ways to harvest stem cells, and I think abortive embryonic/fetal stem cells are of questionable long-term use anyway. Using your own stem cells, which your parents (hopefully) acquired for you at birth, is FAR superior, and we should be striving to have stem cells harvested from as many births as possible. There are also certain types of useful cells residing in your spinal column, though they aren't as nearly as amazing as the ones available at birth. Although I'm not *ethically* against the harvesting of abortive stem cells, my position is one of utilizing the non-abortive avenues of procurement to their full potential, and only using abortive stem cells for testing purposes or as a last resort.
As I said, these are anecdotal, but I can see lots of people having various opinions on this type of subject, and the claim that only the religious are on one side and only the non-religious are on the other is just plain false.
Agreed - claiming religious people as a group hate stem cells is, at best, a stretch.
The only sustained opposition to stem cells that I've researched are for those that come from aborted fetuses. Opinions on the ethics of this type of stem cell procurement can REALLY vary, regardless of a person's background or religious affiliation. After all, even a staunch pro-lifer could argue that it's better to salvage something from the already-lost fetus, and even a staunch pro-choicer could argue that using stem cells from an aborted fetus is ethically similar to harvesting organs, and then follow up with an argument about why that, in turn, is unethical.
At the other end of the spectrum, even though I'm atheist, I question how useful aborted fetal stem cells really are without bringing religion into it at all. There's plenty of other avenues for stem cells, including grabbing some at the time of the child's birth (the docs asked me if I wanted to for my daughter 10 years ago; spendy as hell back then) and your own spinal cord (these are less effective, though). AFAIK, fetal stem cells are most useful to that fetus as it grows, so cells from aborted fetuses are typically used for testing purposes instead of for the general population.
See? An various opposing opinions without relying on a god or lack thereof. I always wonder why folks like the grandparent assume atheists and religion-folk have to be at odds on all things. Really, it's just one (big) thing.
Sorry man - I feel for you. Broke my scaphoid snowboarding 8 or 9 years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaphoid_fracture). It was in smithereens, really; a full break down the middle and another less-complete fracture offshooting from the center of that. Which ones did you break? The wrist, especially, has a lot of little bastards in a wee tiny bit of space, and anything needing pins in your other arm must have meant it was NASTY.
In my case, I had the option to go with pins and a small supportive plate, but the expensive-as-hell surgery was expected to leave me between 50 - 70% range of motion. My other option was a cast with hope that the bone would heal well, which would leading to an almost full recovery. Sadly, it did not (the scaphoid's blood supply is super weird; when it breaks it has a very high incidence of necrosis). What should have been 3 months in a cast was nearly 2 years. The initial 3 months was spent in a full arm cast, fingertips to collarbone. Rough.
The little bastard STILL makes my wrist hurt, pop, crackle, and sometimes just not work quite right, over a decade later. I still can't do some things without mild to serious pain, like weight lifting, bowling, shooting a basketball, riding a bike; hell even using the gearshift in my car hurts if I twist or pull my wrist just right. (Before the ACs tease me with the oh-so-original joke, I switched hands years ago for that, and haven't looked back since. =). Anyway, when it finally started to fuse together, you could see how oddly it healed in the x-rays; the angle is now all wrong and my other wrist bones are displaced accordingly.
I can tell you, if they get this stuff to the point that treatment in people is generally successful, I'll gladly undergo a re-break and re-set. If I could be assured of a quick, and just as importantly, successful recovery this time around, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I turned down surgery for the risks and cost in the first place, and turned it down again after the cast came off for the fear of many more months of recovery PLUS no guarantee of success anyway.
I dunno.... even though your joke was funny as hell, it's still hard to read with the caps. I get the joke, but the filter probably SHOULD warn you that what you're about to post could be tricksy to others. Just the price you gotta pay to be a funny fucker.
Fair enough. I guess I just want to see the word "pardon" used. Admittedly, this is an issue I'm probably too close to for full objectivity.
Still, I know too many people who have been affected by similar bullshit in the past. Regardless of whether it was a law or not, it was always bullshit, and the people who were convicted of this "crime" were either caught in the act (which I find unlikely), or admitted to the charges to take a stand, and should be invariably exonerated with a pardon.
Slashdot Mirror
People always talk about the free market, but one thing they miss is that the free market requires rational actors. Expanding the companies' infrastructures may or may not be rational, but this depends on whether the rational acting consumers demand and will pay for it if they do.
Generally, we as consumers put up with waaay too much shit, and continue to buy products anyway, allowing the companies to whatever they want.
It seems to me like having nationwide 4G coverage would be a HUGE selling point for a telco, even in sparsely populated areas (we're everywhere, even while you're sleeping in the woods!!!), but they know they don't have to until forced.
Also, as a former telco employee, classifying a service as a utility should not be done lightly. The portion of your bill that goes to taxes on utilities are fucking nuts (worse than what you see) and while it's harder to price gouge in the short run, there's a reason a land line costs $60 after taxes. Also, the intent of guidelines can be skirted pretty easily, which is why calling customer service results in a sales pitch, and why unless you specifically ask for a "1FR line" you get the package deal with long distance and call waiting blah blah.
I think that your way is a good way to put it, although it all really comes down to semantics. All rights come from the people at some level, because we have to think them up and (here's the important bit) agree on them. Even if you believe god handed down human rights, there are a great many humans who don't believe in your god, so you still have to communicate and agree with them on what "human rights" boil down to.
It's difficult to just say "Here is the list of human rights that humans get. Done!" because even the basic ones change sometimes, and there are some pretty high-level concepts now found to now be fundamental. It used to be that your only "rights" depended on your ability or your army's ability to fight, run, or sneak; what the hell was freedom of speech back then? Now, we have all these fancy lists and pursuits and whatnot, which is better than good, it's great! Still, our rights were and (super important) are determined by mutual contracts with each other (i.e. you can have the right to free speech, but all the rest of us do too), and we absolutely must work to defend existing agreements and the ability to add new cultural agreements. They really are the only things propping our current rights up, and are the only way to expand and improve human rights in the future.
In any case, you're right. We absolutely have to agree that all humans deserve the same rights as any other humans, and that these rights are protected for all of us.
Not so fast.... have you talked to your dad about this yet? He's down at the milk plant now.
I previously worked for a company that interfaced with police agencies all over the country (we were there database software provider). I can tell you that there's really not as much bad shit going on as you think. Yeah, there's some, but most cops just want to punch in and punch out safely, just like you. I can't compare to the UK.
There are so many police officers in this country that of COURSE you're gonna get some racists, nutjobs, or power-trippers, just like any other large enough group of people. Getting up in arms over police abuses isn't the right fight, as those cops are degenerate assholes anyway and would be committing crimes if they were cops or not (the position of authority does make many crimes more egregious though). The right fight is going after the stupid laws and lawmakers that allow these behaviors to continue without removing these officers.
Nobel Prize Winners.
All dead, and replaced by Mexican mafia doppelgangers.
Residents of Greenland.
Trick question. These do not exist; Greenland is a rumor spread by the Mexican mafia. Proof? If there were residents of Greenland, some of them would have been killed by the Mexican mafia.
Members of the Japanese Royal Family.
Are you kidding? The Japanese Royal Family is so totally made up of Mexican mafia zombies; they were the first ones to go. Japan is the fastest way to get H to the Mongols.
Way to ROFLSTOMP the discussion.
"Holy shit, O, come look at this post!! I was algo-writhing about the tubings, and ran across the most refusing comment the internet has ever seen!! What should I do with it, do you think?"
"Shit, I don't care, U. Give it a higher ranking for searches coming out of Uruguay, or something. Just make sure you catalog it; G won't like it if anything slips through the cracks."
Agreed... what the french, toast? Also, we know all about you and your cootie queen, mortonda.
I don't see why Goggle just chooses to count the letter "o" when the number of letter "g"s in a word is just as important. Shrug.
Works for me. I'll support whoever I have to to get my marijuana and public executions.
What if I provide a citation for you? As in, "I am hapslappy_2222, and I endorse this message." (Rider endorsement: I also support legalized marijuana and public executions). Now, if someone endorses ME, and YOU endorse THAT person, we'll have an unassailable tautology of truth.
Yay for applying political science principles to real science!!
I think, by use of the word skepticism, the OP meant this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism and not this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism.
The second usage is definitely not "healthy" (I actually think "healthy" is a silly adjective for the word "skepticism" anyway, but I digress) for exploration of facts, while the first usage means, exactly, to "follow the data and not make any assumptions before you analyze it".
I agree with you that your job should be something you enjoy. That's actually part of the other side of the argument; to many of us, it seems plausible that an exciting (risky?) and busy (job security!!!) software change could make your job more interesting. It also seems like a big risk to quit, and then go out and find new work now.
I don't think the guy's a douche, but I'd have to think really hard about making a decision like this without doing everything I could to fix the problem before quitting. Then again, I have a family to support (not sure about his), so I may not have the same freedom to take risks. Or, maybe I'm more risk averse after losing all the equity in my house. Either way - "douche" is too strong, but "be careful" is not.
correction: .... the issue isn't simply a software change...
The options aren't limited to 2, and none of them are mutually exclusive. You could also:
-Determine why the change is being rolled out, and fight it if it doesn't make business or technical sense (I imagine a senior developer must be able to give input and, more importantly, has colleagues that agree with your assessment). If it really is a bad decision, and not just disagreeable new software, you could end up a hero by saving the company from x mega-disasters costing y truckloads of dollars (you do have the degree of damage calculated using a presentable formula, right?)
-If the new software choice does make sense, learn the new architecture as it is deployed, expanding other abilities on top of your ERP experience. You were smart enough to learn ERP, and now you have a brand new skill to market, too. That's like having a great business ass, but now you got a free business boob job, too. Now you're a multi-talented hero, and even future companies that want to do the business sex to you will enjoy this.
-If the change does not make sense, insulate yourself from blame by involving yourself rather than getting all snooty about the smelly new MS software. If it really goes horribly badly, it's more likely they'll need your reliable ass to fix it than fire you. Again, hero. Maybe you don't want to save the day, which is fine, but there's money to be made in hero-ing.
If none of these options are available or are unlikely to even be considered at your company, the issue simply a software change. You should leave because it's a shitty place to work, not because they made a poor decision.
You maybe need to learn to stand up for yourself a bit better. It always makes me wonder why people are willing to quit over stuff like this. If you're planning on being gone anyway, isn't it worth going in and pushing for what you want prior to bailing out?
There's been a couple of times in my career that I thought I was going to be separating from a company, but I went in and got what I wanted instead. There was one time I didn't get what I wanted, and guess what? I wasn't any worse off than if I'd just quit, plus my former employer knew exactly why I was leaving.
If you're not happy at your job, you owe it to yourself to try to make it better, and asking for improvements is easier than asking for a raise anyway.
I think it's hilariously appropriate that your sig includes a double-your-money-back guarantee.
I just wish I could get away with snorting all the coke I can get my hands on every June 28th. ;)
I'd actually go you one further and say "some people you refer to" instead of "religious people you refer to".
Religion doesn't necessarily have have anything to do with opinions on abortive stem cell harvesting, research, or usage, for either side. Here are two anecdotal examples:
1- My mother is very religious, but thinks abortive stem cells should be harvested since the embryos/fetuses are lost already. Her position is one of salvaging what possible good can come from what is essentially a complete tragedy.
2- I'm atheist, but I think there are plenty of other ways to harvest stem cells, and I think abortive embryonic/fetal stem cells are of questionable long-term use anyway. Using your own stem cells, which your parents (hopefully) acquired for you at birth, is FAR superior, and we should be striving to have stem cells harvested from as many births as possible. There are also certain types of useful cells residing in your spinal column, though they aren't as nearly as amazing as the ones available at birth. Although I'm not *ethically* against the harvesting of abortive stem cells, my position is one of utilizing the non-abortive avenues of procurement to their full potential, and only using abortive stem cells for testing purposes or as a last resort.
As I said, these are anecdotal, but I can see lots of people having various opinions on this type of subject, and the claim that only the religious are on one side and only the non-religious are on the other is just plain false.
Agreed - claiming religious people as a group hate stem cells is, at best, a stretch.
The only sustained opposition to stem cells that I've researched are for those that come from aborted fetuses. Opinions on the ethics of this type of stem cell procurement can REALLY vary, regardless of a person's background or religious affiliation. After all, even a staunch pro-lifer could argue that it's better to salvage something from the already-lost fetus, and even a staunch pro-choicer could argue that using stem cells from an aborted fetus is ethically similar to harvesting organs, and then follow up with an argument about why that, in turn, is unethical.
At the other end of the spectrum, even though I'm atheist, I question how useful aborted fetal stem cells really are without bringing religion into it at all. There's plenty of other avenues for stem cells, including grabbing some at the time of the child's birth (the docs asked me if I wanted to for my daughter 10 years ago; spendy as hell back then) and your own spinal cord (these are less effective, though). AFAIK, fetal stem cells are most useful to that fetus as it grows, so cells from aborted fetuses are typically used for testing purposes instead of for the general population.
See? An various opposing opinions without relying on a god or lack thereof. I always wonder why folks like the grandparent assume atheists and religion-folk have to be at odds on all things. Really, it's just one (big) thing.
Sorry man - I feel for you. Broke my scaphoid snowboarding 8 or 9 years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaphoid_fracture). It was in smithereens, really; a full break down the middle and another less-complete fracture offshooting from the center of that. Which ones did you break? The wrist, especially, has a lot of little bastards in a wee tiny bit of space, and anything needing pins in your other arm must have meant it was NASTY.
In my case, I had the option to go with pins and a small supportive plate, but the expensive-as-hell surgery was expected to leave me between 50 - 70% range of motion. My other option was a cast with hope that the bone would heal well, which would leading to an almost full recovery. Sadly, it did not (the scaphoid's blood supply is super weird; when it breaks it has a very high incidence of necrosis). What should have been 3 months in a cast was nearly 2 years. The initial 3 months was spent in a full arm cast, fingertips to collarbone. Rough.
The little bastard STILL makes my wrist hurt, pop, crackle, and sometimes just not work quite right, over a decade later. I still can't do some things without mild to serious pain, like weight lifting, bowling, shooting a basketball, riding a bike; hell even using the gearshift in my car hurts if I twist or pull my wrist just right. (Before the ACs tease me with the oh-so-original joke, I switched hands years ago for that, and haven't looked back since. =). Anyway, when it finally started to fuse together, you could see how oddly it healed in the x-rays; the angle is now all wrong and my other wrist bones are displaced accordingly.
I can tell you, if they get this stuff to the point that treatment in people is generally successful, I'll gladly undergo a re-break and re-set. If I could be assured of a quick, and just as importantly, successful recovery this time around, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I turned down surgery for the risks and cost in the first place, and turned it down again after the cast came off for the fear of many more months of recovery PLUS no guarantee of success anyway.
The same thing that happens if you were to rub it on any other penis. Why would you think you would be any different? Geez.
I dunno.... even though your joke was funny as hell, it's still hard to read with the caps. I get the joke, but the filter probably SHOULD warn you that what you're about to post could be tricksy to others. Just the price you gotta pay to be a funny fucker.
It's that thing you can't find a job in when your savings run out and you can't afford the internet for craigslist.
Fair enough. I guess I just want to see the word "pardon" used. Admittedly, this is an issue I'm probably too close to for full objectivity.
Still, I know too many people who have been affected by similar bullshit in the past. Regardless of whether it was a law or not, it was always bullshit, and the people who were convicted of this "crime" were either caught in the act (which I find unlikely), or admitted to the charges to take a stand, and should be invariably exonerated with a pardon.