In general, people will work as hard as they need to in order to stay in their "comfort zone".
This also applies to achieving beyond your comfort zone. Once you have more than you need to be "comfortable", most people get just lazy enough to fall back into their comfort zone.
If your goal is to be happy, then not blaming yourself for you failures is a pretty decent tactic.
For the short term. And only in a protected environment.
That means that someone else has to take the hit for your failure.
If you tend to believe that causes of your failure are external, temporary, and specific to the incident, then you tend to feel good about yourself, and continue to take risks.
Taking risks is fine, as long as there's someone else who is NOT taking a risk to protect you.
Example: Any dangerous sport you can think of.
You can take the risk because the people making your protective gear did NOT take a risk.
And because the doctor who will be working on you will NOT be taking a risk.
If you feel that the causes of your failure are internal, permanent and generalized, you will stop taking risks, and become depressed.
Only in extreme cases.
For the rest of us, we look at what happened and why it happened and if it was because of something we did or did not do or didn't know enough about, we WORK to IMPROVE our skills or knowledge so that the NEXT time we will succeed.
Well, not specifically told, but it was heavily implied in a "team building" exercise I went to at an old company.
It's about your mental position. If you "know" that you're good at something, then you will BE good at that. Any problems will be because of external issues.
If things accidentally work out, that's because you're so good. If things accidentally fail, that wasn't because of you.
And by "accidentally work out" I include hiring people who pay more attention to the problem than you do.
Because "person" is a subject term, but almost everyone will believe that THEIR definition is "objective" and why won't the rest of you see plain logic?:) I like toasted marshmallows.
Gates knows that any business that wants to be part of the future, needs to be involved in China and India. That's 1/3rd of the worlds population. Bill Gates and the boys at Google aren't stupid.
And no one has said that they're stupid.
Just that they are supporting China's oppression of political dissidents.
And your post seems to imply that they are doing it because it is more profitable than refusing.
The Constitution is not meant to include *all* our rights. That was by design. Just because a right is not in the Constitution does not mean it doesn't exist or can't exist. It's sloppy interpretation to say any given right that we "should" have is somewhere in the Constitution if only we can extrapolate it. Not all the rights we want/need/deserve are there.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
There, the Bill of Rights (amendments to the Constitution) specifically state that other rights may exist and just because they aren't specifically mentioned does not mean they do not exist.
BY THE PEOPLE
So, any judge who says that there is not a Constitutional Right to "X" is lying.
Even if you care nothing about other people's rights (which have been violated), or about the rule of law, you should care about the fact that your rights can easily be violated.
If it is possible, then you have no rights.
Just because it hasn't happened to you (yet?) does not mean that you have any rights in the matter.
Perhaps you're not doing anything *illegal* but when there are unchecked powers with no limit (if he can ignore the constitution and congress...) then you can be wiretapped/searched/followed for any reason they like...such as promoting the opposing political party perhaps?
This is not meant to be funny.
It is easy to "justify" that action, or any action.
Obviously the president would be better able to focus on terrorist threats if he didn't have to focus on petty political maneuvers.
Therefore, spying on anyone who opposes his political agenda is actually helping the president prevent terrorist attacks by freeing up his time to focus on that.
There is an old line about "the ends do not justify the means".
Once you start using the "goal" to justify the tactics, then ANYTHING can be "justified".
So you don't approve of "X". Do you want the terrorists to win?
Creationists believe in evolution, but they just believe in micro evolution. This part of Science has been observed. They don't believe in macro, cosmic, and other base parts of evolution. Most science professors and teachers teach micro and then lump all the other kinds of evolution into it.
There is no "micro" or "macro" or "cosmic"
There is only "evolution". All those other terms have been created by various religious people in an attempt to discredit evolution.
Which is the reason that they aren't used in actual biology textbooks.
It they think that they own you, and that you "owe" them loyalty for being trained, they should have made that clear by signing a contract to that effect before the training.
That is a form of indentured servitude.
You can sign all the contracts you want like that and then break them. They're illegal in the US.
If that is what you are looking for there is no reason that it has to be done at the server. Why can't the email client automatically send out a form letter reply that the email was caught by the spam filter, and maybe even the reason why it was, and instruct them to contact the user to ensure they read it if it important?
Because the next wave of spam would be copies of those form letters with the spam in them.
Don't add more steps to try to compensate for a broken concept/implementation. Fix the concept/implementation.
I far prefer a client-side solution for all the reasons I mentioned - it leaves the user and not the mail administrator in control of their mail.
There are several email servers that can allow the users to select which filters they want and even allow SpamAssassin to be programmed on a per-user basis.
That isn't what is happening and your sarcasm is rather thick and misplaced.
Thick, yes. Misplaced, no.
If your criteria is just that no spam appear in your "inbox", then what I posted is 100% accurate, effective and easy to implement today.
The problem with your criteria is that the person sending you a message will never know whether you read it or not, unless you specifically reply to them or contact them in some other fashion.
If the message is rejected at the server, that person will know (subject to the limitations of his email server) that it was accepted or that it was rejected. That way, the sender can see that his message was rejected and then call you to let you know there is a problem.
I don't think it is a fair criticism of MS to judge them by that standard. Fistly, it makes sense that the only people who they are going to help with spam are those using their products. I take "eliminate spam" to mean that they are going to eliminate it from our inboxes.
Easy to do. With no "false positive" or missed spam.
Create folder called "my new mail".
Setup a rule to move all incoming mail to the "my new mail" folder.
There! Instantly I have solved the problem and "eliminated" spam from you "inboxes".
Meanwhile, I'll still focus on rejecting mail at the server level. That way, if it is legitimate, the sender's server should provide him/her with a rejection message so they will NOT believe that I have received the message.
Prayer is one example of talking about your beliefs, as is proselytizing, as are lots of other things.
Like I said, you're a retarded moron.
If you think this is a restatement of my position, then you do not understand my position, which is hard to believe, because I've explained it clearly, though that would explain why you continue to fail to disprove it.
I understand your position completely. That is why I am able to point out exactly when you try to restate it. As you are doing right now. And I have disproven it on multiple occasions. And each time you attempt to restate it.
Explain how a Catholic man, who goes to Catholic church every Sunday, who believes the Catholic faith is the one true religion, who raised his children in the Catholic religion, who is proud that one of his sons became a Catholic priest and who hopes that his grandchildren will be raised Catholic is a BIGOT against the Catholic faith because he supports the separation of church and state.
You cannot do that because you are a retarded moron.
Instead, you will: #1. attempt to substitute different words to change the meaning of what you posted.
#2. attempt to impose some other criteria.
#3. ignore the question and try to change the subject yet again.
By my logic, that Catholic is only biased against Catholicism if he refuses to talk about his beliefs during the zoning meeting because of their nature; he's not a bigot if he refuses to talk about them because they're irrelevant.
This isn't about "talking about his beliefs".
This is about wanting to start the meeting with a Catholic prayer and such.
What, you think that Catholics are never bigoted against Catholicism?
I didn't say "never".
I said: "By your definition, that Catholic is a bigot against Catholicism, just by not talking about his religion during that zoning meeting."
Yeah, a retarded moron like yourself would have trouble reading a simple sentence like that and have to add words and possible conditions that I never stated and that do not apply.
If the company is willing to pay you to support old browsers/OS's because the company is getting something out of the clients with those browsers/OS's, then that is their concern.
That was already covered. Since all relilgions are banned, no matter who proposes them, there is no bigotry.
Unless you're operating from some definition of "bigotry" that only exists in your own head.
Banning an activity for being religious is bigotry, and an example of government-sponsored promotion of the religion of secularism.
First off, there is no "religion of secularism".
Go ahead, tell me a pray from any secularist church. You can't?
Then post a picture to any secular holy symbol. You can't?
So, someone who is not currently praying or wearing any holy jewelery or clothing MUST be advocating secularism. At least, accourding to your "logic".
Yet those same people will go to actual religious churches and pray and so forth.
So... your definition of "bigotry" included Catholics who go to church regularly, wear crucifixes, etc, but don't recite any holy scripture during a zoning meeting.
So, for the duration of that meeting, in that location, they abandon their Catholic faith and join the "religion of secularism".
As does anyone else who agrees to the separation of church and state.
But once they're out the door, they're Catholics again. But for a while, they were, unwittingly, Secularists!
Now, since you believe that, you are a retarded moron.
Agreeing not to discuss religion in no way, shape or form changes the religion the person belongs to or imposes any religion upon anyone else. Despite your claims to the contrary.
Not tolerating an activity because it's religious is bigotry, as opposed to not tolerating an activity because it's stupid.
No. The issue is not about the activity, but about the use of governmental facilities for that activity while an official government activity is taking place.
Singing hymns is fine, at home, in church, with friends, etc.
Singing hymns in a government building, during a zoning meeting is not fine. And opposing it is not bigotry.
You are still an idiot.
I'm interested in hearing new viewpoints, even if they're wrong.
Since your position is wrong, you are unable to tell what is correct from what is wrong.
As I've just illustrated with your comment on bigotry.
In order to learn something new, you must first lose the belief that you already know it.
Slashdot Mirror
In general, people will work as hard as they need to in order to stay in their "comfort zone".
This also applies to achieving beyond your comfort zone. Once you have more than you need to be "comfortable", most people get just lazy enough to fall back into their comfort zone.
That means that someone else has to take the hit for your failure.Taking risks is fine, as long as there's someone else who is NOT taking a risk to protect you.
Example: Any dangerous sport you can think of.
You can take the risk because the people making your protective gear did NOT take a risk.
And because the doctor who will be working on you will NOT be taking a risk.Only in extreme cases.
For the rest of us, we look at what happened and why it happened and if it was because of something we did or did not do or didn't know enough about, we WORK to IMPROVE our skills or knowledge so that the NEXT time we will succeed.
Well, not specifically told, but it was heavily implied in a "team building" exercise I went to at an old company.
It's about your mental position. If you "know" that you're good at something, then you will BE good at that. Any problems will be because of external issues.
If things accidentally work out, that's because you're so good.
If things accidentally fail, that wasn't because of you.
And by "accidentally work out" I include hiring people who pay more attention to the problem than you do.
And that hasn't stopped us from experimenting on them.
The eggs you buy at Safeway are chicken embryos. The worst you're getting is a high cholesterol count.
Because "person" is a subject term, but almost everyone will believe that THEIR definition is "objective" and why won't the rest of you see plain logic? :)
I like toasted marshmallows.
And when/if the rights of one person supercede the rights of another person.
Just that they are supporting China's oppression of political dissidents.
And your post seems to imply that they are doing it because it is more profitable than refusing.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
There, the Bill of Rights (amendments to the Constitution) specifically state that other rights may exist and just because they aren't specifically mentioned does not mean they do not exist.
BY THE PEOPLE
So, any judge who says that there is not a Constitutional Right to "X" is lying.
Just because it hasn't happened to you (yet?) does not mean that you have any rights in the matter.
It just means that it hasn't happened to you yet.
Pure techs value the technical aspects more.
Other people believe that selling is most important.
Still other people believe that growing the business is most important.
I'm a tech, I'd vote for Woz.
It is easy to "justify" that action, or any action.
Obviously the president would be better able to focus on terrorist threats if he didn't have to focus on petty political maneuvers.
Therefore, spying on anyone who opposes his political agenda is actually helping the president prevent terrorist attacks by freeing up his time to focus on that.
There is an old line about "the ends do not justify the means".
Once you start using the "goal" to justify the tactics, then ANYTHING can be "justified".
So you don't approve of "X". Do you want the terrorists to win?
or
"macro"
or
"cosmic"
There is only "evolution". All those other terms have been created by various religious people in an attempt to discredit evolution.
Which is the reason that they aren't used in actual biology textbooks.
You can sign all the contracts you want like that and then break them. They're illegal in the US.
Don't add more steps to try to compensate for a broken concept/implementation. Fix the concept/implementation.
There are several email servers that can allow the users to select which filters they want and even allow SpamAssassin to be programmed on a per-user basis.
Exim4 is the one I use right now.
If your criteria is just that no spam appear in your "inbox", then what I posted is 100% accurate, effective and easy to implement today.
The problem with your criteria is that the person sending you a message will never know whether you read it or not, unless you specifically reply to them or contact them in some other fashion.
If the message is rejected at the server, that person will know (subject to the limitations of his email server) that it was accepted or that it was rejected. That way, the sender can see that his message was rejected and then call you to let you know there is a problem.
Create folder called "my new mail".
Setup a rule to move all incoming mail to the "my new mail" folder.
There! Instantly I have solved the problem and "eliminated" spam from you "inboxes".
Meanwhile, I'll still focus on rejecting mail at the server level. That way, if it is legitimate, the sender's server should provide him/her with a rejection message so they will NOT believe that I have received the message.
Explain how a Catholic man, who goes to Catholic church every Sunday, who believes the Catholic faith is the one true religion, who raised his children in the Catholic religion, who is proud that one of his sons became a Catholic priest and who hopes that his grandchildren will be raised Catholic is a BIGOT against the Catholic faith because he supports the separation of church and state.
You cannot do that because you are a retarded moron.
Instead, you will:
#1. attempt to substitute different words to change the meaning of what you posted.
#2. attempt to impose some other criteria.
#3. ignore the question and try to change the subject yet again.
This is about wanting to start the meeting with a Catholic prayer and such.
Here, read your own post.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=174281&thresh
This is the second time you've tried to restate your position. That is because I am kicking your retarded moron ass.
I said:
"By your definition, that Catholic is a bigot against Catholicism, just by not talking about his religion during that zoning meeting."
Yeah, a retarded moron like yourself would have trouble reading a simple sentence like that and have to add words and possible conditions that I never stated and that do not apply.
That's a business decision, not your's.
If the company is willing to pay you to support old browsers/OS's because the company is getting something out of the clients with those browsers/OS's, then that is their concern.
Bigotry is practiced by bigots.
By your definition, that Catholic is a bigot against Catholicism, just by not talking about his religion during that zoning meeting.
Yeah, that sounds like something a retarded moron like yourself would believe.
Unless you're operating from some definition of "bigotry" that only exists in your own head.First off, there is no "religion of secularism".
Go ahead, tell me a pray from any secularist church. You can't?
Then post a picture to any secular holy symbol. You can't?
So, someone who is not currently praying or wearing any holy jewelery or clothing MUST be advocating secularism. At least, accourding to your "logic".
Yet those same people will go to actual religious churches and pray and so forth.
So
So, for the duration of that meeting, in that location, they abandon their Catholic faith and join the "religion of secularism".
As does anyone else who agrees to the separation of church and state.
But once they're out the door, they're Catholics again. But for a while, they were, unwittingly, Secularists!
Now, since you believe that, you are a retarded moron.
Agreeing not to discuss religion in no way, shape or form changes the religion the person belongs to or imposes any religion upon anyone else. Despite your claims to the contrary.
So, define it.That is exactly what I said. Why are repeating what I just said?Again, you're repeating what I just said. Why?And that is exactly what I've been saying.
So, you've just spend a whole paragraph saying what I've been saying.And you have, once again, stated exactly what I've already said.
Which makes you a moron. There is no bigotry in banning all religious activities at government functions.
Yet you tried to portray it as such.
Maybe "moron" isn't accurate. I'd say you're more of a retarded moron.
Have a nice life you fucking idiotic retarded moron.
Singing hymns is fine, at home, in church, with friends, etc.
Singing hymns in a government building, during a zoning meeting is not fine. And opposing it is not bigotry.
You are still an idiot.
Since your position is wrong, you are unable to tell what is correct from what is wrong.
As I've just illustrated with your comment on bigotry.
In order to learn something new, you must first lose the belief that you already know it.