So let's quit doing that. If we reduced US Military spending by 10% each year for 10 years and pulled out of some of the many, many places around the world where we maintain a military presence and let others shoulder some of that burden, we could drop our taxes significantly and come across as less imperialist at the same time. Everybody wins!
Ron Paul had some wacky ideas, but the fact that we spend an absolutely ridiculous amount on the military in this country isn't one of them.
This applies (on a different scale) even if you're not poor. For instance, I'm gainfully employed, and looking at buying a house, but I don't have a down payment. There's a big difference between being sure you can make a $1,000/mo mortgage payment, and having $30,000 saved up already. All these people advising paying cash for cars don't realize that if you're poor, you just *don't have the money*. Yes it's cheaper in the long run than paying interest, but that's just one of the ways being poor is more expensive than being rich.
Japan exports a lot of products, particularly consumer electronics. They also depend heavily on imports for things like food. Any sort of tariffs or sanctions related to those would certainly make an impression.
Re:Why is everyone being so negative in here?
on
Hacking Charisma
·
· Score: 1
Well, balance is key, and that's where the skill comes in. Making eye contact enough to convey confidence/interest without staring and making people uncomfortable is a perfect example of something that some people pick up just by being around other humans and some people have to really think about, at least until they develop the habit.
Re:Why is everyone being so negative in here?
on
Hacking Charisma
·
· Score: 2
Exactly. Wow, Slashdot unimpressed by an article about management and social skills? In other news, sources close to the Pope say he may be Catholic...
It looks like most of what she's teaching is pretty straightforward stuff - stand up straight, look people in the eye, and think about something calming before a big meeting or presentation so you're less nervous. Also, most people don't appreciate being interrupted unless they've specifically signed up for it (and maybe not even then). It's not "mind control", it's just how to be polite and assertive at the same time. A few years ago, I realized that the reason they're called "social SKILLS" is because they can be learned, and my personal and professional lives have both skyrocketed.
The fact of the matter is, if more tech folks looked at dealing with people as a (solvable!) challenge, we'd have more technical ideas being listened to. Instead, they say "it doesn't come naturally to me, so it must not be worth learning at all" and management is dominated by clueless BS artists, reinforcing the stereotype of the socially clueless engineer and the technically clueless boss. Doesn't the alternative (engineers who've put in the work to learn how to deal with people) sound better?
For me, LinkedIn mostly recommends people who are two or three degrees of separation away... but two of my favorite website operators are consistently in my top hits. I have no idea how or why; I haven't connected to them because 1) I don't know them that personally and 2) it's just plain eerie.
The 4th amendment only affects government personnel. As long as the *police* did nothing illegal, the evidence will hold up in court. My guess is that they received the tip, got a warrant, then searched the guy's computer. Otherwise, the case probably will not hold up in court. (Technically speaking, a tip is not enough to secure a warrant-- you need a credible person's tip (meaning that they give their name, it's not anonymous) and corroborating evidence-- the police officer witnessed something, or (in this case) the techs actually showed him the files. It's a fine line-- if the officer asked to see the files without a warrant, that would be a violation of Sodomski's rights. But if the techs gave the cops unsolicited physical evidence, it would be admissible in court.)
Now, maybe the techs could later be sued in civil court for looking at his files. It's pretty obvious there was no call to go poking through his hard drive. But if they're the only ones who acted improperly, the guy's goin' down.
In case there was any doubt, anonymous political activity IS protected by the constitution. See especially McIntyre v. Ohio, in which the Court ruled that a woman could not be fined just for distributing anonymous political pamphlets. It's also the reason the KKK is allowed to march in parades wearing masks.
It's pretty obvious that a court order was forthcoming. Google just smoothed things out and caused a little less paperwork. A dangerous path to go down, but I think in this instance there was no harm done.
As a side note, I find it interesting who the plaintiffs were. Last time I checked, in the US public officials are unlikely to sue for libel, since they have to prove malice (either the defendant knew the statements were false, or published them with reckless disregard for the truth). That's a pretty hard barrier to overcome, since you have to prove something about what the defendant knew and thought.
Make sure to initial your crossing-out; this shows that you're the one who did it (not beyond any scientific doubt, of course, but that's the usual legal requirement.)
...good old-fashioned democracy at work.
Seriously, though, what kind of organization are they running, here? Any company, from anywhere, can suddenly be a member just by paying 2500-- a nominal fee, for many large companies. That seems like asking for trouble to me.
Ok... if you're trying to produce ethanol, and if you then burn it in an internal combustion engine. That's not what I was talking about. The particular strain of algae I was talking about produces H2 directly, which goes into a fuel cell.
Ok, there's something wrong with this picture. Here the guy's laptop is on fire, in the middle of his floor. He calls in 2 fire trucks, a HAZMAT team, and I forget what else. Now he said in TFA that the 911 guys overreacted, but still. Why on EARTH would he not just put it out himself, rather than calling 911? Heck, even if he didn't have an extinguisher... you beat it out with a blanket, or something. I guarantee that's less damage than the firemen will do to your house...
Here's the thing, though: Photovoltaic cells aren't the best way to utilize solar energy.
As a trivial example, the Boston MoS featured an algae tube that produced hydrogen in the sunlight. Using that H2 to produce power is a lot more efficient than a standard PV cell. The only trouble* is "but that's not the way we do things nowww!" so it hasn't caught on. Once the infastructure is in place, though, I foresee fields of this stuff.
*Plus, y'know, it's algae. "Ewww, slimy!":D
In the video, the arm still looks clumsy. Its movements are similar to the ones in the movie Short Circuit. Sure, this looks a little more realistic (or it would if there was some sort of skin simulation), but without sophisticated software to enable more lifelike movements, I don't see how this is any better than what we already had.
Speaking as someone who's never owned a cell phone, I'd have to say you've got me there. So, sure, people could have avoided having to sign this particular contract by deciding not to own a cell phone. That wouldn't save them from all the other unethical contracts found in daily life, though. This is a pervasive problem, not one that only applies to luxuries, and this is an important victory. As you pointed out below, this decision can now be applied to other court decisions by using similar logic.
I guess you're right. There are situations where you might *wish* you had a skill, but not enough to actually put a point in it. For the DND system, it makes sense to get rid of those skills.
On the other hand, I'm reluctant to condone anything that makes DND more of a hack-and-slash-only game. If only someone in my area played GURPS...
Contracts can't override laws, and there are indeed many such bluffs. However, that's not the same as saying you can't give up your rights.
IANAL, but I have studied contracts. The standard statement "by participating in this program, you agree not to sue us" is called an exculpatory clause, and it IS binding under most circumstances. You're giving up the right to sue them for negligence, which otherwise you would have.
Slashdot Mirror
It's simple, just use the 3.5mm jack. ;)
So let's quit doing that. If we reduced US Military spending by 10% each year for 10 years and pulled out of some of the many, many places around the world where we maintain a military presence and let others shoulder some of that burden, we could drop our taxes significantly and come across as less imperialist at the same time. Everybody wins!
Ron Paul had some wacky ideas, but the fact that we spend an absolutely ridiculous amount on the military in this country isn't one of them.
This applies (on a different scale) even if you're not poor. For instance, I'm gainfully employed, and looking at buying a house, but I don't have a down payment. There's a big difference between being sure you can make a $1,000/mo mortgage payment, and having $30,000 saved up already. All these people advising paying cash for cars don't realize that if you're poor, you just *don't have the money*. Yes it's cheaper in the long run than paying interest, but that's just one of the ways being poor is more expensive than being rich.
Japan exports a lot of products, particularly consumer electronics. They also depend heavily on imports for things like food. Any sort of tariffs or sanctions related to those would certainly make an impression.
Well, balance is key, and that's where the skill comes in. Making eye contact enough to convey confidence/interest without staring and making people uncomfortable is a perfect example of something that some people pick up just by being around other humans and some people have to really think about, at least until they develop the habit.
Exactly. Wow, Slashdot unimpressed by an article about management and social skills? In other news, sources close to the Pope say he may be Catholic...
It looks like most of what she's teaching is pretty straightforward stuff - stand up straight, look people in the eye, and think about something calming before a big meeting or presentation so you're less nervous. Also, most people don't appreciate being interrupted unless they've specifically signed up for it (and maybe not even then). It's not "mind control", it's just how to be polite and assertive at the same time. A few years ago, I realized that the reason they're called "social SKILLS" is because they can be learned, and my personal and professional lives have both skyrocketed.
The fact of the matter is, if more tech folks looked at dealing with people as a (solvable!) challenge, we'd have more technical ideas being listened to. Instead, they say "it doesn't come naturally to me, so it must not be worth learning at all" and management is dominated by clueless BS artists, reinforcing the stereotype of the socially clueless engineer and the technically clueless boss. Doesn't the alternative (engineers who've put in the work to learn how to deal with people) sound better?
Seconding AC - I can't figure out how "kaseijin" (Martian) fits in at all... spill! :P
For me, LinkedIn mostly recommends people who are two or three degrees of separation away... but two of my favorite website operators are consistently in my top hits. I have no idea how or why; I haven't connected to them because 1) I don't know them that personally and 2) it's just plain eerie.
*chokes* Don't get me wrong, I love living in Vermont, but I would never describe Burlington as "ritzy".
to whomever tagged this "complementary," that's incorrect-- it's "complimentary," as in the phrase "with our compliments."
Sure, but how many Libraries of Congress is it??
The 4th amendment only affects government personnel. As long as the *police* did nothing illegal, the evidence will hold up in court. My guess is that they received the tip, got a warrant, then searched the guy's computer. Otherwise, the case probably will not hold up in court. (Technically speaking, a tip is not enough to secure a warrant-- you need a credible person's tip (meaning that they give their name, it's not anonymous) and corroborating evidence-- the police officer witnessed something, or (in this case) the techs actually showed him the files. It's a fine line-- if the officer asked to see the files without a warrant, that would be a violation of Sodomski's rights. But if the techs gave the cops unsolicited physical evidence, it would be admissible in court.)
Now, maybe the techs could later be sued in civil court for looking at his files. It's pretty obvious there was no call to go poking through his hard drive. But if they're the only ones who acted improperly, the guy's goin' down.
In case there was any doubt, anonymous political activity IS protected by the constitution. See especially McIntyre v. Ohio, in which the Court ruled that a woman could not be fined just for distributing anonymous political pamphlets. It's also the reason the KKK is allowed to march in parades wearing masks.
It's pretty obvious that a court order was forthcoming. Google just smoothed things out and caused a little less paperwork. A dangerous path to go down, but I think in this instance there was no harm done. As a side note, I find it interesting who the plaintiffs were. Last time I checked, in the US public officials are unlikely to sue for libel, since they have to prove malice (either the defendant knew the statements were false, or published them with reckless disregard for the truth). That's a pretty hard barrier to overcome, since you have to prove something about what the defendant knew and thought.
Make sure to initial your crossing-out; this shows that you're the one who did it (not beyond any scientific doubt, of course, but that's the usual legal requirement.)
We've been reading a lot about talent trees in this edition...
Wait, my character can now gain talents just by shaking certain trees? Score! This will make adventuring much easier!
...good old-fashioned democracy at work. Seriously, though, what kind of organization are they running, here? Any company, from anywhere, can suddenly be a member just by paying 2500-- a nominal fee, for many large companies. That seems like asking for trouble to me.
Ok... if you're trying to produce ethanol, and if you then burn it in an internal combustion engine. That's not what I was talking about. The particular strain of algae I was talking about produces H2 directly, which goes into a fuel cell.
Ok, there's something wrong with this picture. Here the guy's laptop is on fire, in the middle of his floor. He calls in 2 fire trucks, a HAZMAT team, and I forget what else. Now he said in TFA that the 911 guys overreacted, but still. Why on EARTH would he not just put it out himself, rather than calling 911? Heck, even if he didn't have an extinguisher... you beat it out with a blanket, or something. I guarantee that's less damage than the firemen will do to your house...
Here's the thing, though: Photovoltaic cells aren't the best way to utilize solar energy. As a trivial example, the Boston MoS featured an algae tube that produced hydrogen in the sunlight. Using that H2 to produce power is a lot more efficient than a standard PV cell. The only trouble* is "but that's not the way we do things nowww!" so it hasn't caught on. Once the infastructure is in place, though, I foresee fields of this stuff. *Plus, y'know, it's algae. "Ewww, slimy!" :D
In the video, the arm still looks clumsy. Its movements are similar to the ones in the movie Short Circuit. Sure, this looks a little more realistic (or it would if there was some sort of skin simulation), but without sophisticated software to enable more lifelike movements, I don't see how this is any better than what we already had.
Speaking as someone who's never owned a cell phone, I'd have to say you've got me there. So, sure, people could have avoided having to sign this particular contract by deciding not to own a cell phone. That wouldn't save them from all the other unethical contracts found in daily life, though. This is a pervasive problem, not one that only applies to luxuries, and this is an important victory. As you pointed out below, this decision can now be applied to other court decisions by using similar logic.
I guess you're right. There are situations where you might *wish* you had a skill, but not enough to actually put a point in it. For the DND system, it makes sense to get rid of those skills. On the other hand, I'm reluctant to condone anything that makes DND more of a hack-and-slash-only game. If only someone in my area played GURPS...
Contracts can't override laws, and there are indeed many such bluffs. However, that's not the same as saying you can't give up your rights. IANAL, but I have studied contracts. The standard statement "by participating in this program, you agree not to sue us" is called an exculpatory clause, and it IS binding under most circumstances. You're giving up the right to sue them for negligence, which otherwise you would have.