Why not say explain why you disagree with their policies rather than just make a childish and divisive remark? And no, I'm not a conservative or a Republican, I'm just sick of hearing this sort of nonsense -- from all sides.
Indeed. Not clear cut at all when so many of the loans made by the federally owned Export-Import Bank are made to the company that its nickname is the "Bank of Boeing".
He's trying to put like minded people in as state GOP officers, and to amass delegates. And he'll keep doing that until all the primaries and caucuses are over this summer.
Well, you do have a significantly smaller population, and a larger country than the UK, so population density is much reduced, I think when this happens a per capita death rate for the roads is expected to be less, as every day on the roads there are less opportunities for a crash per capita.
That assumes that the population is evenly distributed throughout the whole country, rather than being largely concentrated in cities.
I understand the sentiment because I love Ed Norton too. But see it anyway. Mark Ruffalo totally nailed the role. Better than Bana or Norton, and not just in my opinion.
The other independent is Bernie Sanders. Like him or not, he definitely sticks to his socialist positions. He's willing to make deals with strange bedfellows though - for instance, he worked with Ron Paul on the Fed audit that uncovered trillions of dollars going to major banks.
This is not strange to me. Progressives want government to do more and libertarians want government to do less, but neither wants the corporatism that we have today. At least in the short term, progressives and libertarians should be cooperating. Unfortunately, most people in both groups are too busy hating the other side to think this one through.
It's not really credit card sized. If it were it'd look like SELMA from Time Trax. It has two dimensions that correspond with a credit card, but it's a lot thicker. Not that I'm complaining, it's still amazingly small. I just think it's better described as "deck of cards sized" or "pack of cigarettes sized" or whatever.
Because you can opt out. Of course, you won't opt out because you don't want to have to call your ISP and say "Please can you let me look at porn", or explain to your boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife why you've had the filth-filter turned off.
Assuming you have a prudish significant other who sees it as that and not as a fun-filter.
Jobs did that too, I suppose. But I wouldn't do that. A CEO is extremely expensive and only has only so many hours in a day. There are managers whose job it is to oversee software development. A CEO shouldn't waste his own valuable time undermining those managers' authority by doing their job for them without having complete information, not to mention that if programmers are working on the wrong thing it's probably not their fault in the first place.
I'm not saying it's irrelevant whether the CEO of a tech company has a tech background, I agree that's a good thing. But at that level, that's not his job any more. Either he can trust the people whose job it really is, or else the company has bigger problems that a tech background won't help solve.
There is such thing as society, but (1) it's made up of individuals, and (2) it's not at all the same thing as the government. Government does some good things for some people at the expense of other people, but just because some people are on the winning side of that it doesn't mean that paying taxes is the same thing as giving back to society. I may not use his company's software, but I would say Bill Gates is a better example of that.
I also don't pretend to know as much about this guy's background as everyone else. Maybe his dad worked his ass off to make sure he got into the best schools for all I know. In that case he wouldn't owe society for his success, it would be directly attributable to his father.
And then, yes, there's the libertarian argument that it wasn't "society" who made him wealthy, it was individuals who (for whatever reason) decided it was worthwhile to shell out however much for the software he wrote. I don't think that should be so quickly dismissed, although I understand that what you're saying is more concerned with how he got to be able to do that in the first place.
I suppose I can't reasonably disagree with that. And having worked in higher education for ten years, I know better than most how poor the relationship can be between having a degree and actually knowing anything. I hope it didn't come across that I think it's okay this particular guy is a liar, because I don't.
I understand what you're saying here, and for a smaller organization I might agree, but we're talking about Yahoo!, which is (still) large enough that the CEO shouldn't be dealing with the programmers directly.
Yes, because it means you'd understand your firm's financial statements, which is more important for a CEO than understanding the code its programmers write.
Slashdot Mirror
What if all that is true? That still doesn't mean the other side must act similarly.
Even if all of your complaints about Wikipedians are true, I still say screw you for being a vandal.
Well, they can always go work for political campaigns.
Why not say explain why you disagree with their policies rather than just make a childish and divisive remark? And no, I'm not a conservative or a Republican, I'm just sick of hearing this sort of nonsense -- from all sides.
As warranted as your sarcasm is, it's still better than placing something so important in the hands of the anti-freedom bureaucrats at the UN.
Indeed. Not clear cut at all when so many of the loans made by the federally owned Export-Import Bank are made to the company that its nickname is the "Bank of Boeing".
All of them.
"Non-profit" is not a synonym for "never needs revenue".
He's trying to put like minded people in as state GOP officers, and to amass delegates. And he'll keep doing that until all the primaries and caucuses are over this summer.
Yeah, because every other country has awesome, insightful politicians?
Well, you do have a significantly smaller population, and a larger country than the UK, so population density is much reduced, I think when this happens a per capita death rate for the roads is expected to be less, as every day on the roads there are less opportunities for a crash per capita.
That assumes that the population is evenly distributed throughout the whole country, rather than being largely concentrated in cities.
Trollin'... trollin'... trollin' down the river....
I understand the sentiment because I love Ed Norton too. But see it anyway. Mark Ruffalo totally nailed the role. Better than Bana or Norton, and not just in my opinion.
I guess. I liked it too. But when it comes to these things I have a fairly low entertainment threshold.
I've hung around libertarians for twenty years, and that's false for all the ones I can remember.
The other independent is Bernie Sanders. Like him or not, he definitely sticks to his socialist positions. He's willing to make deals with strange bedfellows though - for instance, he worked with Ron Paul on the Fed audit that uncovered trillions of dollars going to major banks.
This is not strange to me. Progressives want government to do more and libertarians want government to do less, but neither wants the corporatism that we have today. At least in the short term, progressives and libertarians should be cooperating. Unfortunately, most people in both groups are too busy hating the other side to think this one through.
So basically it's the plot to the movie version of I Am Legend? Awesome.
It's not really credit card sized. If it were it'd look like SELMA from Time Trax. It has two dimensions that correspond with a credit card, but it's a lot thicker. Not that I'm complaining, it's still amazingly small. I just think it's better described as "deck of cards sized" or "pack of cigarettes sized" or whatever.
Because you can opt out. Of course, you won't opt out because you don't want to have to call your ISP and say "Please can you let me look at porn", or explain to your boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife why you've had the filth-filter turned off.
Assuming you have a prudish significant other who sees it as that and not as a fun-filter.
Jobs did that too, I suppose. But I wouldn't do that. A CEO is extremely expensive and only has only so many hours in a day. There are managers whose job it is to oversee software development. A CEO shouldn't waste his own valuable time undermining those managers' authority by doing their job for them without having complete information, not to mention that if programmers are working on the wrong thing it's probably not their fault in the first place.
I'm not saying it's irrelevant whether the CEO of a tech company has a tech background, I agree that's a good thing. But at that level, that's not his job any more. Either he can trust the people whose job it really is, or else the company has bigger problems that a tech background won't help solve.
There is such thing as society, but (1) it's made up of individuals, and (2) it's not at all the same thing as the government. Government does some good things for some people at the expense of other people, but just because some people are on the winning side of that it doesn't mean that paying taxes is the same thing as giving back to society. I may not use his company's software, but I would say Bill Gates is a better example of that.
I also don't pretend to know as much about this guy's background as everyone else. Maybe his dad worked his ass off to make sure he got into the best schools for all I know. In that case he wouldn't owe society for his success, it would be directly attributable to his father.
And then, yes, there's the libertarian argument that it wasn't "society" who made him wealthy, it was individuals who (for whatever reason) decided it was worthwhile to shell out however much for the software he wrote. I don't think that should be so quickly dismissed, although I understand that what you're saying is more concerned with how he got to be able to do that in the first place.
I suppose I can't reasonably disagree with that. And having worked in higher education for ten years, I know better than most how poor the relationship can be between having a degree and actually knowing anything. I hope it didn't come across that I think it's okay this particular guy is a liar, because I don't.
I understand what you're saying here, and for a smaller organization I might agree, but we're talking about Yahoo!, which is (still) large enough that the CEO shouldn't be dealing with the programmers directly.
Yes, because it means you'd understand your firm's financial statements, which is more important for a CEO than understanding the code its programmers write.
See what I did there?