Making the decision that you want to put a white, black, or anything else face on the company and publicizing that decision is a sure way to get a bad reaction. While I suppose it is fair game technically, it's rarely if ever a good idea.
Regardless of their class, a bum doesn't have to cut an imposing figure. He could shower at the Y or at a homeless shelter, get clothes from various donation bins, make an effort to comb his hair, etc. When a filthy guy approaches me wearing worn out or torn clothes and holding a bottle of booze, it's his lack of self-respect that I recoil from, not his class. Perhaps this is bigotry in your book, but to my mind, judging people based on things that are reasonably within their control is different than judging them based on how they were born.
There's some interesting stuff in there. I, too, have been accused of looking angry when I thought I was looking relaxed, but it never occurred to me that I had to avoid looking at minorities lest they think I'm racist - though being a minority myself, I'm probably less worried about that kind of thing in general. Do you not think that white people on the bus will assume you're making unflattering assumptions about them when they see you "scowling" at them?
Personally, I find people who are desperate to avoid being racist even more irritating than coming across racism. In either case, I can't just have a simple interaction and I have no idea whether in their minds they're dealing with me personally or with a "coloured guy", so I have no idea how to react to them. At least with a bigot, I can tell them to get bent when their behaviour becomes more than I'm willing to deal with. It's harder to react to someone who thinks you're sensitive enough about the colour of your skin to really care whether they make an offhand comment, since they are well-intentioned and tend to get more nervous when they realize they're completely transparent.
How much more expensive is it to hire 20 civilians per voting district than it is to install those machines? Is anybody willing to pay for it? Are the people who would make that decision the same ones who would be most likely to have the ability to tamper with E-Voting machines?
Do races get protections? Unless they claim some first people's type of race (i.e. the Thetos or whatever they're called were here before us all), I imagine they wouldn't.
Otherwise, I will be claiming protections as well. I am a member of the human race, the Canadian race and I was shortlisted to be on the Amazing Race.
I thought the answer to the Parent's rhetorical was the dinosaur.
A bug the size of a Turkey wouldn't bite a mouse, it would either eat it or leave it alone. If it eats it, disease in the bug is a non-issue since the mouse is dead either way and this is simply the food chain to which both species have adapted.
If the turkeybug feeds on dino blood, though, the dinosaurs would not be adapted to death by mosquito on a large scale and would not have any defenses prepared should bug bites suddenly become deadly. This means that the advent of a disease being carried by these bugs is dangerous only to animals large enough that the bug can feed from it without killing it - dinosaurs in this case - even if the disease is deadly to reptiles and mammals. Small reptiles, of course, would be in the same situation as the mouse and wouldn't be bothered by the disease unless a brontosaurus fell on them.
Yes, at first glance it would. At second glance, perhaps birds and dinosaurs weren't so closely related as to make birds vulnerable to the particular pathogen(s) at hand. At third glance, perhaps many species of birds were severely damaged or wiped out by the same thing. At fourth glance, it could be that the carrier insects didn't like fighting through feathers to get to bird skin, so they stuck to biting dinosaurs.
I'm sure more glances would lead to even more explanations, ideas, theories or what have you and that someone who was actually looking would be able to prove the results of all my glances wrong without too much effort.
I would say that the no-bid outsourcing you're describing falls under the umbrella of government screw-ups, unless it's actually intentional incompetence. It is government employees (or government in general), then, who is responsible for allowing Boeing to screw this up.
Athletes and corporate executives are employees, so there are significant differences between their large salaries and copyright, the most important being that they need to continue showing up to work in order to get paid. It's no different than your boss making more than you, except on a different scale.
Even the sculpture example is different, since there is only one, and presumably you are giving money directly to the person responsible for the creativity, rather than to a corporation.
I can't even imagine what all of those "PC Users Are Losers" ads must cost.
Indeed. Two guys standing in a room talking will definitely break the bank. Maybe they should hire someone less FX intensive to make their ads, like George Lucas or Pixar.
Maybe he has naked pictures of his wife, or he has bank details and passwords, and doesn't want security guards and the like going through his stuff. Maybe he has naked pictures or emails to his mistress and doesn't want his wife finding out. Maybe he values his privacy even though he has nothing to hide.
I have nothing to hide, but I still prefer to shit in private.
That's not being good with credit - that's being paranoid. You might be very good with money, but having no proof of it doesn't tell your employee anything.
I disagree that not using credit is being paranoid, but that doesn't really matter. The point is that if you handle your money well enough that you never have to borrow any, this generally flags you as "inexperienced" (not necessarily bad, as someone else pointed out), instead of flagging you as "no information". This, to me, is a flaw in the system that should be addressed if employers and landlords are going to perform credit checks on people.
Much natural medicine is nothing more than adopting a healthy lifestyle, even if it's not packaged that way. I can't speak to things like acupuncture, or drinking 18 cups of green tea every four minutes, but when people go on "all-natural healing programs" and such, a large part of their perceived healing is likely to come from the fact that they're no longer suffering major deficiencies in their diet. All the fluff about alternative medicine just puts it in a fancy package, the reality is that eating "real" food and getting all the nutrients that your body wants and less of the crap it doesn't will have a marked and nearly immediate positive impact on health.
It's unfortunate that tactics such as whole (i.e. real) food diets get lumped under the Alternative Medicine label with copper armbands and cockroach stew.
When I was a kid, my Mom's car was hit while parked outside our house. The driver took off, she had to pay to fix it, and her insurance went up. I was rear-ended sitting at a red light. My insurance went up. Sometimes getting into an accident has nothing to do with good sense or a lack thereof.
I'm curious which uncontrollable risk factors you're talking about. That isn't meant as a dig or sarcasm or anything, but I was under the impression that the greatest risk factors for heart disease were poor diet and smoking, and a quick search confirms the notion that most risk factors are controllable and can be known should one be interested in taking the tests.
But if you're so good with money that you never use credit cards or take loans, then you have no credit score at all, and this is considered 'bad' credit.
Nah. Canada has a system similar to this, and yet no matter who I vote for, every time there's a legislation vote that matters, the US Government gets 30% of the vote, US Industry gets 50%, Canadian Industry gets 10%, and the other 10% is on vacation.
Marketing doesn't help you find the best acts, it just helps you find the bands that can afford good marketing. Regardless of the trends in the industry, the only way to find music you like is to listen to music.
The Church forbids condoms and fornication. People choose to ignore the ban on fornication, and blame the ban on condoms for spreading AIDS. I have a tough time feeling that's the Church's fault. Unless they come out with sin consultants who make sure that you mix your sins appropriately.
If you follow all the rules and it gives you AIDS, then turn to the Church. If you disregard some or all of them, you are basically taking responsibility for yourself, so it's up to you to protect yourself from any consequences.
NB: I used the word rules because I couldn't think of anything better. They aren't really rules, more like strong suggestions or guidelines. You know what I mean.
Evil entirely? I mentioned above that by Catholic (and my) reasoning, the poor are those who do not possess and cannot acquire the means of supporting life. Voluntarily giving food to someone who is hungry, or shelter to someone who has none is far from evil.
On the other hand, forcefully taking people's money in order to squander 70% of it in a bureaucracy and give the rest to people who don't want to work but feel the need to own a plasma TV and the latest Jordan's (are those still popular?) could be described as evil.
My interpretation of the context, and I may be wrong, was that Jesus was speaking to a specific guy when he said this. It was a rich man who loved his money (bible says property) who was asking what he should do, and this is what Jesus said. This wasn't what he said to everybody who asked him for advice, but in this case, I thought he was telling the man to abandon his greed, as that was more important to him than God.
Luke 12:33
Interesting and something I'll think about.
1 John 3:17
It was John that said this, not Jesus (not that it matters, really).
Either way, my bible reads:
But whoever has the world's goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?
Whether you say "has no pity" or "closes his heart", I don't think you can make any reasonable argument for accusing the pope of it. The Catholic Church heads many charitable organizations and gives boatloads of money to the poor - defined as those who do not possess and cannot acquire the means of supporting life, admittedly a strict metric, but also reasonable, IMO. I say boatloads based only on my own experience with the church, I have no stats, but if you don't believe me, look it up yourself.
...I'm a huge fan of this Jesus guy. It's 99% of the people who purport to follow him that manage to genuinely fuck up the world.
I disagree with the 99% (maybe in the U.S., but protestants generally don't like the pope any more than you do) but understand the feeling. I would argue that recent popes are not among those who are managing to genuinely fuck up the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Making the decision that you want to put a white, black, or anything else face on the company and publicizing that decision is a sure way to get a bad reaction. While I suppose it is fair game technically, it's rarely if ever a good idea.
I disagree.
Regardless of their class, a bum doesn't have to cut an imposing figure. He could shower at the Y or at a homeless shelter, get clothes from various donation bins, make an effort to comb his hair, etc.
When a filthy guy approaches me wearing worn out or torn clothes and holding a bottle of booze, it's his lack of self-respect that I recoil from, not his class. Perhaps this is bigotry in your book, but to my mind, judging people based on things that are reasonably within their control is different than judging them based on how they were born.
There's some interesting stuff in there. I, too, have been accused of looking angry when I thought I was looking relaxed, but it never occurred to me that I had to avoid looking at minorities lest they think I'm racist - though being a minority myself, I'm probably less worried about that kind of thing in general. Do you not think that white people on the bus will assume you're making unflattering assumptions about them when they see you "scowling" at them?
Personally, I find people who are desperate to avoid being racist even more irritating than coming across racism. In either case, I can't just have a simple interaction and I have no idea whether in their minds they're dealing with me personally or with a "coloured guy", so I have no idea how to react to them. At least with a bigot, I can tell them to get bent when their behaviour becomes more than I'm willing to deal with. It's harder to react to someone who thinks you're sensitive enough about the colour of your skin to really care whether they make an offhand comment, since they are well-intentioned and tend to get more nervous when they realize they're completely transparent.
The question then becomes:
How much more expensive is it to hire 20 civilians per voting district than it is to install those machines? Is anybody willing to pay for it? Are the people who would make that decision the same ones who would be most likely to have the ability to tamper with E-Voting machines?
I guess the question becomes three questions.
Do races get protections? Unless they claim some first people's type of race (i.e. the Thetos or whatever they're called were here before us all), I imagine they wouldn't.
Otherwise, I will be claiming protections as well. I am a member of the human race, the Canadian race and I was shortlisted to be on the Amazing Race.
I thought the answer to the Parent's rhetorical was the dinosaur.
A bug the size of a Turkey wouldn't bite a mouse, it would either eat it or leave it alone. If it eats it, disease in the bug is a non-issue since the mouse is dead either way and this is simply the food chain to which both species have adapted.
If the turkeybug feeds on dino blood, though, the dinosaurs would not be adapted to death by mosquito on a large scale and would not have any defenses prepared should bug bites suddenly become deadly. This means that the advent of a disease being carried by these bugs is dangerous only to animals large enough that the bug can feed from it without killing it - dinosaurs in this case - even if the disease is deadly to reptiles and mammals. Small reptiles, of course, would be in the same situation as the mouse and wouldn't be bothered by the disease unless a brontosaurus fell on them.
Yes, at first glance it would. At second glance, perhaps birds and dinosaurs weren't so closely related as to make birds vulnerable to the particular pathogen(s) at hand. At third glance, perhaps many species of birds were severely damaged or wiped out by the same thing. At fourth glance, it could be that the carrier insects didn't like fighting through feathers to get to bird skin, so they stuck to biting dinosaurs.
I'm sure more glances would lead to even more explanations, ideas, theories or what have you and that someone who was actually looking would be able to prove the results of all my glances wrong without too much effort.
"Where all the thoughtful analysis have gone?"
It's (they've?) apparently eloped with the grammar.
There are many more people in the world who eat meat than there are who understand or even know about the methods of testing for mad cow.
I would say that the no-bid outsourcing you're describing falls under the umbrella of government screw-ups, unless it's actually intentional incompetence. It is government employees (or government in general), then, who is responsible for allowing Boeing to screw this up.
Changing lackeys != Changing things
In fact, changing lackeys is worse than leaving the existing ones in if the existing ones are loyal to the previous party.
Athletes and corporate executives are employees, so there are significant differences between their large salaries and copyright, the most important being that they need to continue showing up to work in order to get paid. It's no different than your boss making more than you, except on a different scale.
Even the sculpture example is different, since there is only one, and presumably you are giving money directly to the person responsible for the creativity, rather than to a corporation.
I can't even imagine what all of those "PC Users Are Losers" ads must cost.
Indeed. Two guys standing in a room talking will definitely break the bank. Maybe they should hire someone less FX intensive to make their ads, like George Lucas or Pixar.
Maybe he has naked pictures of his wife, or he has bank details and passwords, and doesn't want security guards and the like going through his stuff. Maybe he has naked pictures or emails to his mistress and doesn't want his wife finding out. Maybe he values his privacy even though he has nothing to hide.
I have nothing to hide, but I still prefer to shit in private.
That's not being good with credit - that's being paranoid. You might be very good with money, but having no proof of it doesn't tell your employee anything.
I disagree that not using credit is being paranoid, but that doesn't really matter. The point is that if you handle your money well enough that you never have to borrow any, this generally flags you as "inexperienced" (not necessarily bad, as someone else pointed out), instead of flagging you as "no information". This, to me, is a flaw in the system that should be addressed if employers and landlords are going to perform credit checks on people.
Much natural medicine is nothing more than adopting a healthy lifestyle, even if it's not packaged that way. I can't speak to things like acupuncture, or drinking 18 cups of green tea every four minutes, but when people go on "all-natural healing programs" and such, a large part of their perceived healing is likely to come from the fact that they're no longer suffering major deficiencies in their diet. All the fluff about alternative medicine just puts it in a fancy package, the reality is that eating "real" food and getting all the nutrients that your body wants and less of the crap it doesn't will have a marked and nearly immediate positive impact on health.
It's unfortunate that tactics such as whole (i.e. real) food diets get lumped under the Alternative Medicine label with copper armbands and cockroach stew.
When I was a kid, my Mom's car was hit while parked outside our house. The driver took off, she had to pay to fix it, and her insurance went up. I was rear-ended sitting at a red light. My insurance went up. Sometimes getting into an accident has nothing to do with good sense or a lack thereof.
I'm curious which uncontrollable risk factors you're talking about. That isn't meant as a dig or sarcasm or anything, but I was under the impression that the greatest risk factors for heart disease were poor diet and smoking, and a quick search confirms the notion that most risk factors are controllable and can be known should one be interested in taking the tests.
But if you're so good with money that you never use credit cards or take loans, then you have no credit score at all, and this is considered 'bad' credit.
Nah. Canada has a system similar to this, and yet no matter who I vote for, every time there's a legislation vote that matters, the US Government gets 30% of the vote, US Industry gets 50%, Canadian Industry gets 10%, and the other 10% is on vacation.
Marketing doesn't help you find the best acts, it just helps you find the bands that can afford good marketing. Regardless of the trends in the industry, the only way to find music you like is to listen to music.
The Church forbids condoms and fornication. People choose to ignore the ban on fornication, and blame the ban on condoms for spreading AIDS. I have a tough time feeling that's the Church's fault. Unless they come out with sin consultants who make sure that you mix your sins appropriately.
If you follow all the rules and it gives you AIDS, then turn to the Church. If you disregard some or all of them, you are basically taking responsibility for yourself, so it's up to you to protect yourself from any consequences.
NB: I used the word rules because I couldn't think of anything better. They aren't really rules, more like strong suggestions or guidelines. You know what I mean.
Evil entirely? I mentioned above that by Catholic (and my) reasoning, the poor are those who do not possess and cannot acquire the means of supporting life. Voluntarily giving food to someone who is hungry, or shelter to someone who has none is far from evil.
On the other hand, forcefully taking people's money in order to squander 70% of it in a bureaucracy and give the rest to people who don't want to work but feel the need to own a plasma TV and the latest Jordan's (are those still popular?)
could be described as evil.
Matthew 19:21
My interpretation of the context, and I may be wrong, was that Jesus was speaking to a specific guy when he said this. It was a rich man who loved his money (bible says property) who was asking what he should do, and this is what Jesus said. This wasn't what he said to everybody who asked him for advice, but in this case, I thought he was telling the man to abandon his greed, as that was more important to him than God.
Luke 12:33
Interesting and something I'll think about.
1 John 3:17
It was John that said this, not Jesus (not that it matters, really).
Either way, my bible reads:
But whoever has the world's goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?
Whether you say "has no pity" or "closes his heart", I don't think you can make any reasonable argument for accusing the pope of it. The Catholic Church heads many charitable organizations and gives boatloads of money to the poor - defined as those who do not possess and cannot acquire the means of supporting life, admittedly a strict metric, but also reasonable, IMO. I say boatloads based only on my own experience with the church, I have no stats, but if you don't believe me, look it up yourself.
...I'm a huge fan of this Jesus guy. It's 99% of the people who purport to follow him that manage to genuinely fuck up the world.
I disagree with the 99% (maybe in the U.S., but protestants generally don't like the pope any more than you do) but understand the feeling. I would argue that recent popes are not among those who are managing to genuinely fuck up the world.
Yeah, Americans would never be obnoxious like that in another country.