Assuming it takes their computers 30 minutes to boot, what do you expect them to do? They hit the power button, and then for 30 minutes they can't work, even if they wanted to. What they do during that time in which they are physically and literally unable to perform work is completely irrelevant. The computer is needed for work, the computer is not on yet, therefore work is impossible. You may as well go have a cup and chat while you're still locked out. You want them to sit twiddling their thumbs?
You missed the point. He said they get to fire you specifically for no reason, which is absolutely perfectly legal everywhere (at least in the US). Wrongful termination requires you to prove that there was a specific reason you were fired, and further requires that that reason be one of a certain set of categories that are protected. In other words, there are many reasons by which your employer can't fire you, but no reason isn't one of them. All they have to do is simply go up to you, say, "You're fired," and then send you packing, and as long as there wasn't some sort of obvious pattern pointing to a protected class, there's nothing else to it.
Lots of corporations have their boxes set up to perform all sorts of updates and such during boot up. Ours even store all of your personal documents on the server (so your desktop/my documents show up the same regardless of where you log on), but the setup means that it actually pulls all those files down from the server every single time you boot up. I don't know if you can easily mount your desktop from a network drive in Windows (I know it's simple as can be in *nix), but our computers don't. Does Windows support *nix style symbolic links? For system folders? God, I'm glad I've never had to administer a Windows system now that I think about this...
ANYWAY, if you add in the fact that our computers are SEVERELY under-equipped in the RAM department (512 megs, yikes), and 30 minutes to boot definitely happens sometimes. 15 minutes is quite common. I imagine many offices are in the same situation, and definitely understand where this article is coming from, but thankfully everybody in my office is salaried (even mail room employees), with overtime generously provided at your prorated hourly rate when necessary, so it's not an issue here. My sympathies to people who are losing out on all those wages.
My guess is you were suffering more on account of being the only woman rather than being a woman. Flirtation is generally just a normal and harmless element of male-female interaction. I've never worked in an office where it didn't happen all the time on a basic meaningless level. The problem with being the only woman/man in an office full of the opposite sex is that suddenly you become the sole available target for flirtation, which I imagine turns it from being a pleasant social interaction into an overwhelming experience. It is strangely unsurprising that many CS-type men lack the social sophistication to recognize that and ease up;) (sorry, stereotyping, I couldn't help it)
Did you actually read the post you responded to? If so, I think you somewhat missed the point that the people he listed were actually authors of statistical studies dealing with MANY people. Your response makes absolutely NO sense to me with respect to the actual post you're responding to, but I could just be misreading.
To be fair, I think the GP's point was that religion promotes irrational behavior, and this propensity towards irrational behavior should be considered detrimental to one's ability to lead a nation. As far as that goes, I'm inclined to agree. I think his hypothetical situation was just poorly thought out for getting that point across.
When you try to imagine the game without the graphics, you realize how little gameplay there actually is. It might be feasible to make a nethack-style game that captures every element of WoW gameplay, but that would be a very dull game indeed.
But now imagine a WoW-style game that captures every element of nethack gameplay. Oh god I would never be seen outside again...
I think all the focus is on raiding because people are used to, once they achieve max level, not having anything else to do with themselves in the game. Raiding for PvE, arena for PvP, or... maybe grinding out thousands of crafting materials? I haven't played WotLK and don't really intend to, but that's how I remember it being in the last expansion--you hit 70 and then... not much.
Also, I'm afraid Fallout 3 has spoiled me when it comes to fantastic design and attention to detail. A new bar has been set for games that want to consider themselves immersive!
I'll be first to admit it's entirely possible that this time around things are different. People are used getting a certain experience from Blizzard though, and I think are most likely to judge the new expansion based on past experiences with similar products. I know that's the case for me at least.
Well, I tried "1 kilo comments in shit-tons" and got The Girl Who Ate Everything. Honestly I'm not really sure I want to know what Google was thinking. Then I tried it in "shit-tonnes" thinking maybe the metric system would allow for a more accurate conversion, but it seems that shit only comes in such quantities in America. Ah well, I guess we'll never know.
While the bank can't refuse to give you your money, could they simply refuse to transfer it to certain other third parties? In other words, could they say, "Sure, take your money, but we won't be sending it to that recipient." I'm curious.
Your approach is a reasonable one. However I don't like it because there is essentially nothing that I can personally do to reduce the number of scammers in the world.
One might argue that lack of action is as much of a choice as action, and in that it is a choice it is something for which you are responsible, or could be blamed. Your failure to respond to Nigerian scams has reduced the total profit derived from these scams, and consequently reduced the number of scammers.
In other words, I submit that you personally are reducing the number of scammers in the world by simply not being stupid. Now, if only everybody did their little part we wouldn't have these problems...
Keep repeating that and keep showing your ignorance. Nazi's were socialists...
Nazis were about as socialist as my toaster oven is. You can call yourself something all you want, it doesn't make it true. Much the same can be said about any self-described "communist" country out there--they're generally not even remotely close to being genuine communist states, it's all propaganda.
To be straightforward, Nazis were fascist above anything else. Fascism and socialism are about as for removed from each other as it's possible to get on the grand scale of political ideology.
Obama had more ads because Obama had more money. A LOT more money. You don't honestly think any station gives ad time away for free, do you? It was a major factor in this campaign that he had SO MUCH more money than his opponent that he was able to outspend McCain on advertisements often 3:1 (or even more) in many states. Why did he have more money? Because a great many more citizens gave him money than they did McCain. So no, that had NOTHING to do with one TV station or another favoring him. It had everything to do with the American people favoring him and putting their collective money where there mouths are, as it were.
As for reporting more news on Obama, I think it's perfectly fair to say there was simply more *NEW*s to report. He's a previously relatively unknown black man who had an absolutely meteoric rise to become a serious contender for the presidency, and now our first black president. That's just not newsworthy, it's historic. McCain has been a very well known politician forever, and this isn't even his first stab at the presidency. You tell me which one needed more to be told about him and then tell me with a straight face that it doesn't make sense for Obama to have had more coverage.
As somebody who's been subjected to mandatory community service during his education and, hard though this may be to believe, actually lived to tell about it, I'll stand up for Obama on this and say it's a Good Thing (tm). It really doesn't even matter if you're forcing them to do it, or whether they genuinely want to; you get a bunch of kids out there actually helping, actually producing meaningful work, and learning that they can do good, and with some few of them it will stick. That's all you can really hope for.
As an outside observer, statistically it's very likely that you're from a significantly more homogeneous population than the States. While every country has their political disagreements, the disparity between, say, the US coastal regions and the deep south is something that, in my experience, no other country can duplicate internally.
Which is all by way of saying, it's even more inappropriate to lump all Americans in together than it is with any other nationality I have ever had first-hand experience with, and by a large degree at that. You should also probably remember that the actual majority of us voted against Bush on his second term--many of us because we thought he was evil incarnate. We were hardly trying to "slip one by" you all.
Lots of things get "pointed out," but this one happens to be mostly bullshit. The major deregulation in the banking industry happened during the Reagan administration, and just before it. This current crisis has almost nothing to do with the fact that banks have been giving out slightly more questionable loans than usual. The real explanation is a little involved, but the short version is that banks essentially were repackaging "bad" loans and selling the debt to other banks as "better" loans, which were in turn repackaged them as "great" loans and sold them again. Sounds crazy, but it's what happened. The credit crisis wasn't because people were suddenly not paying off their loans en masse, but because the banks all realize they have no liquidity, and as such aren't able to loan out as much (On the simplified basis that if a bank has $1 million in assets, it's allowed to loan out, say, $4 million, because statistically it won't all be called in at once. But when your $1 million becomes $800k overnight, suddenly you're overdrawn on your loans and everything freezes, no more inter-bank institutional loans, our entire credit-based economy freezes).
In short, this problem was absolutely not caused by Clinton allowing poorer people to take out loans.
I thought I was clear in my position that overall violence will be lessened by permanently removing our military presence from Iraq, and that making our position there permanent will only incite a great deal of additional violence. As romantic as it is to see our military as some sort of totally beneficent peace keeping force, the fact is that it's our very presence there that's incited so much of this violence in the first place. Making it permanent sure as hell isn't going to help.
The peace keeping responsibility in Iraq needs to be transferred to the Iraqis themselves, and as soon as possible, because that will allow us to remove the single greatest source of strife and tension from that country--ourselves. I honestly can't see things ever becoming more peaceful until that happens.
I don't buy that nonsense one bit. If you're looking to end the sort of violence we're seeing in Iraq, a permanent US presence in that country would be about the stupidest possible course of action. Why? This violence is largely taking place as a direct opposition to our presence there. Reinforcing that presence in the long term would be monumentally counterproductive; nearly the entire population wants us the hell out from recent reports I've seen. Clearly an immediate withdrawal of all our forces would be equally ill advised and it needs to be done as a gradual changing of the guard to their own forces, but your hint at a permanent US military presence seems the peak of madness. Unless you want to invite decades of suicide bombers trying to send the message, "Get out of my country."
Yes, it is a good system. Why? Because it minimizes the possibility of creating additional victims, rather than maximizing the possibility of punishing established ones. The moral judgment--one I agree with very strongly--being that it is more important NOT to punish the innocent than it is to punish the guilty. There is no perfect system, but ideally ours is constructed to that end.
A system that seeks to punish the guilty whatever the cost is the one you should truly fear.
Um, what? That doesn't make any damn sense. I'm assuming this is all in reference to the US bullying of Antigua, specifically through the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, which was passed by Congress. That makes it specifically within the domain of the US government. As a matter of fact, it was the US government that essentially settled the matter "out of court," to use a term our disgustingly litigious society has become so fond of, and the terms of that settlement are held captive by the Bush administration supposedly as a matter of "national security."
So in sum, I have no clue whatsoever what you are thinking when you say the US can't comply with the WTO order. The fact is the US just doesn't WANT to comply with that order. Arguably international treaty, upon which the US loss in this case is based, takes precedence over domestic law (arguably; clearly the Bush administration is not a proponent of the value of international treaties).
When they're willing to pay extra to cover the porting cost to several sometimes fundamentally different hardware platforms? The return on investment shrinks for each additional platform, and even targeting more than one takes substantial initial capital compared to a single platform release.
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming it takes their computers 30 minutes to boot, what do you expect them to do? They hit the power button, and then for 30 minutes they can't work, even if they wanted to. What they do during that time in which they are physically and literally unable to perform work is completely irrelevant. The computer is needed for work, the computer is not on yet, therefore work is impossible. You may as well go have a cup and chat while you're still locked out. You want them to sit twiddling their thumbs?
You missed the point. He said they get to fire you specifically for no reason, which is absolutely perfectly legal everywhere (at least in the US). Wrongful termination requires you to prove that there was a specific reason you were fired, and further requires that that reason be one of a certain set of categories that are protected. In other words, there are many reasons by which your employer can't fire you, but no reason isn't one of them. All they have to do is simply go up to you, say, "You're fired," and then send you packing, and as long as there wasn't some sort of obvious pattern pointing to a protected class, there's nothing else to it.
Lots of corporations have their boxes set up to perform all sorts of updates and such during boot up. Ours even store all of your personal documents on the server (so your desktop/my documents show up the same regardless of where you log on), but the setup means that it actually pulls all those files down from the server every single time you boot up. I don't know if you can easily mount your desktop from a network drive in Windows (I know it's simple as can be in *nix), but our computers don't. Does Windows support *nix style symbolic links? For system folders? God, I'm glad I've never had to administer a Windows system now that I think about this...
ANYWAY, if you add in the fact that our computers are SEVERELY under-equipped in the RAM department (512 megs, yikes), and 30 minutes to boot definitely happens sometimes. 15 minutes is quite common. I imagine many offices are in the same situation, and definitely understand where this article is coming from, but thankfully everybody in my office is salaried (even mail room employees), with overtime generously provided at your prorated hourly rate when necessary, so it's not an issue here. My sympathies to people who are losing out on all those wages.
My guess is you were suffering more on account of being the only woman rather than being a woman. Flirtation is generally just a normal and harmless element of male-female interaction. I've never worked in an office where it didn't happen all the time on a basic meaningless level. The problem with being the only woman/man in an office full of the opposite sex is that suddenly you become the sole available target for flirtation, which I imagine turns it from being a pleasant social interaction into an overwhelming experience. It is strangely unsurprising that many CS-type men lack the social sophistication to recognize that and ease up ;) (sorry, stereotyping, I couldn't help it)
Did you actually read the post you responded to? If so, I think you somewhat missed the point that the people he listed were actually authors of statistical studies dealing with MANY people. Your response makes absolutely NO sense to me with respect to the actual post you're responding to, but I could just be misreading.
To be fair, I think the GP's point was that religion promotes irrational behavior, and this propensity towards irrational behavior should be considered detrimental to one's ability to lead a nation. As far as that goes, I'm inclined to agree. I think his hypothetical situation was just poorly thought out for getting that point across.
But now imagine a WoW-style game that captures every element of nethack gameplay. Oh god I would never be seen outside again...
I think all the focus is on raiding because people are used to, once they achieve max level, not having anything else to do with themselves in the game. Raiding for PvE, arena for PvP, or... maybe grinding out thousands of crafting materials? I haven't played WotLK and don't really intend to, but that's how I remember it being in the last expansion--you hit 70 and then... not much.
Also, I'm afraid Fallout 3 has spoiled me when it comes to fantastic design and attention to detail. A new bar has been set for games that want to consider themselves immersive!
I'll be first to admit it's entirely possible that this time around things are different. People are used getting a certain experience from Blizzard though, and I think are most likely to judge the new expansion based on past experiences with similar products. I know that's the case for me at least.
Well, I tried "1 kilo comments in shit-tons" and got The Girl Who Ate Everything. Honestly I'm not really sure I want to know what Google was thinking. Then I tried it in "shit-tonnes" thinking maybe the metric system would allow for a more accurate conversion, but it seems that shit only comes in such quantities in America. Ah well, I guess we'll never know.
I'm sure she already owns this one.
While the bank can't refuse to give you your money, could they simply refuse to transfer it to certain other third parties? In other words, could they say, "Sure, take your money, but we won't be sending it to that recipient." I'm curious.
One might argue that lack of action is as much of a choice as action, and in that it is a choice it is something for which you are responsible, or could be blamed. Your failure to respond to Nigerian scams has reduced the total profit derived from these scams, and consequently reduced the number of scammers.
In other words, I submit that you personally are reducing the number of scammers in the world by simply not being stupid. Now, if only everybody did their little part we wouldn't have these problems...
Nazis were about as socialist as my toaster oven is. You can call yourself something all you want, it doesn't make it true. Much the same can be said about any self-described "communist" country out there--they're generally not even remotely close to being genuine communist states, it's all propaganda.
To be straightforward, Nazis were fascist above anything else. Fascism and socialism are about as for removed from each other as it's possible to get on the grand scale of political ideology.
Obama had more ads because Obama had more money. A LOT more money. You don't honestly think any station gives ad time away for free, do you? It was a major factor in this campaign that he had SO MUCH more money than his opponent that he was able to outspend McCain on advertisements often 3:1 (or even more) in many states. Why did he have more money? Because a great many more citizens gave him money than they did McCain. So no, that had NOTHING to do with one TV station or another favoring him. It had everything to do with the American people favoring him and putting their collective money where there mouths are, as it were.
As for reporting more news on Obama, I think it's perfectly fair to say there was simply more *NEW*s to report. He's a previously relatively unknown black man who had an absolutely meteoric rise to become a serious contender for the presidency, and now our first black president. That's just not newsworthy, it's historic. McCain has been a very well known politician forever, and this isn't even his first stab at the presidency. You tell me which one needed more to be told about him and then tell me with a straight face that it doesn't make sense for Obama to have had more coverage.
As somebody who's been subjected to mandatory community service during his education and, hard though this may be to believe, actually lived to tell about it, I'll stand up for Obama on this and say it's a Good Thing (tm). It really doesn't even matter if you're forcing them to do it, or whether they genuinely want to; you get a bunch of kids out there actually helping, actually producing meaningful work, and learning that they can do good, and with some few of them it will stick. That's all you can really hope for.
As an outside observer, statistically it's very likely that you're from a significantly more homogeneous population than the States. While every country has their political disagreements, the disparity between, say, the US coastal regions and the deep south is something that, in my experience, no other country can duplicate internally.
Which is all by way of saying, it's even more inappropriate to lump all Americans in together than it is with any other nationality I have ever had first-hand experience with, and by a large degree at that. You should also probably remember that the actual majority of us voted against Bush on his second term--many of us because we thought he was evil incarnate. We were hardly trying to "slip one by" you all.
Lots of things get "pointed out," but this one happens to be mostly bullshit. The major deregulation in the banking industry happened during the Reagan administration, and just before it. This current crisis has almost nothing to do with the fact that banks have been giving out slightly more questionable loans than usual. The real explanation is a little involved, but the short version is that banks essentially were repackaging "bad" loans and selling the debt to other banks as "better" loans, which were in turn repackaged them as "great" loans and sold them again. Sounds crazy, but it's what happened. The credit crisis wasn't because people were suddenly not paying off their loans en masse, but because the banks all realize they have no liquidity, and as such aren't able to loan out as much (On the simplified basis that if a bank has $1 million in assets, it's allowed to loan out, say, $4 million, because statistically it won't all be called in at once. But when your $1 million becomes $800k overnight, suddenly you're overdrawn on your loans and everything freezes, no more inter-bank institutional loans, our entire credit-based economy freezes).
In short, this problem was absolutely not caused by Clinton allowing poorer people to take out loans.
The bailout of a thousand thousand thousand thousand dollars begins with a single Hamilton.
I thought I was clear in my position that overall violence will be lessened by permanently removing our military presence from Iraq, and that making our position there permanent will only incite a great deal of additional violence. As romantic as it is to see our military as some sort of totally beneficent peace keeping force, the fact is that it's our very presence there that's incited so much of this violence in the first place. Making it permanent sure as hell isn't going to help.
The peace keeping responsibility in Iraq needs to be transferred to the Iraqis themselves, and as soon as possible, because that will allow us to remove the single greatest source of strife and tension from that country--ourselves. I honestly can't see things ever becoming more peaceful until that happens.
I don't buy that nonsense one bit. If you're looking to end the sort of violence we're seeing in Iraq, a permanent US presence in that country would be about the stupidest possible course of action. Why? This violence is largely taking place as a direct opposition to our presence there. Reinforcing that presence in the long term would be monumentally counterproductive; nearly the entire population wants us the hell out from recent reports I've seen. Clearly an immediate withdrawal of all our forces would be equally ill advised and it needs to be done as a gradual changing of the guard to their own forces, but your hint at a permanent US military presence seems the peak of madness. Unless you want to invite decades of suicide bombers trying to send the message, "Get out of my country."
Yes, it is a good system. Why? Because it minimizes the possibility of creating additional victims, rather than maximizing the possibility of punishing established ones. The moral judgment--one I agree with very strongly--being that it is more important NOT to punish the innocent than it is to punish the guilty. There is no perfect system, but ideally ours is constructed to that end.
A system that seeks to punish the guilty whatever the cost is the one you should truly fear.
Um, what? That doesn't make any damn sense. I'm assuming this is all in reference to the US bullying of Antigua, specifically through the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, which was passed by Congress. That makes it specifically within the domain of the US government. As a matter of fact, it was the US government that essentially settled the matter "out of court," to use a term our disgustingly litigious society has become so fond of, and the terms of that settlement are held captive by the Bush administration supposedly as a matter of "national security."
So in sum, I have no clue whatsoever what you are thinking when you say the US can't comply with the WTO order. The fact is the US just doesn't WANT to comply with that order. Arguably international treaty, upon which the US loss in this case is based, takes precedence over domestic law (arguably; clearly the Bush administration is not a proponent of the value of international treaties).
Man, I want some of what all you guys have got. Where I live it's $1,000 and up for a studio.
When they're willing to pay extra to cover the porting cost to several sometimes fundamentally different hardware platforms? The return on investment shrinks for each additional platform, and even targeting more than one takes substantial initial capital compared to a single platform release.
Digg is that way ---->