The main problem is that after numerous years of life-experience, you start realizing what unbelievable sacks of shit most people truly are. If YOU get to live forever, you're going to have to deal with THEM forever too.
If I'd know I'm to live forever, I might not get desperate and try to deal with all the sacks of shit in this world: you know, if you don't need to compromise (like: life is too short and you still want a home by the time your 35) then you might decide to just not compromise... what's the rush?
The idea was that if you go to college you won't have to take a job that required you to be out in the rain and cold at 0400. The main point, however, was that no matter what job you accept, you should be honorable enough to do that job well, even when the conditions aren't to your liking. You've accepted a wage to provide a service. It is now your responsibility to provide that service to the best of your ability.
Totally agree: either you keep your part of the bargain or you get out of the bargain.
The original post made a total trash of the poster (on good grounds, I'm not denying it) and mentioned nothing about the responsibility of the company that hired the handler. I mean, the OP (shoutingly) "PAID FOR THE SERVICE", the only thing the post failed to notice: the OP paid the company, not the shity handler. Therefore, if the OP needs to shout to somebody, it is the company that need to be shouted to in the first place - it is the company that failed to keep their end of bargain with him.
As for the handler: with the attitude shown, I'm more affraid of a situation in which he would have had a degree (with the mindset at that time): having a job with more responsibility and adopting the position of "screw you" might have caused more damage. That's not to say his post doesn't worth the +X Informative: even if not pleasant, it cast a light on some reasons/causes for the situation; but who has the best chances to address it? (my point: it's still the employer).
Do you suggest graduating a college boost you resistance to hypothermia?
Maybe college isn't such a bad idea.
That's not my point.
My point: no matter the degree of the persons in charge of the freight, a way of motivating them to do a proper job is in the hands of the company - I fail to see how one can blame exclusively the handler and totally disregard the role of company.
To illustrate: you think the solution to have the parcels delivered undamaged is to have everybody get a college degree? Assuming this would happen... what, are the parcels magically delivered themselves in pristine conditions, no matter the weather or time of the day (night, for the matter at hand)?
Were you intentionally being funny about the rate of speed and the deceleration not being the same thing? If so, kudos.
Funny as it would this pseudo-redundant (leading to a contradiction) form, I'm not quite convinced that what kills you is exclusively the force (proportional with deceleration) or the shock (acceleration/deceleration rate) has also something to do with it.
Tough shit you little pussy. It is not the customers fault your job is shit and you weren't smart enough to go to college
Wow. Do you suggest graduating a college boost you resistance to hypothermia? Or somebody (college graduate or not) would love to load parcels into the plane?
Because the cause that I see is: highly qualified or not, such a job would require better motivation for those doing it. Maybe if the company hiring them would spend a bit more from the money you(we) paid through the your(our) nose to pay the loaders better, the parcels will be better handled? Maybe the very company you think is slammed has part of the responsibility?
... on the calendar in use today by the western civilization: 5 Oct 1582 to 14 Oct 1582 inclusive.
(:) and, yet, I didn't ask for research funds to feed the computer to reach this 'True knowledge'...)
[Terri Dowerty director at ARCHRights]...added that the fact that there is not a 90 day consultation "sets a dangerous president and is a very depressing sign of the new Government, which promised transparency."
Would a consultation of 120 days will still set a president that's dangerous?
TFA - So your definition of a sophisticated mind does not encompass one that can deal with murdered children, mob control, terrorism or any other of the myriad issues a modern police officer has to deal with.. in your world if you are not IT savvy you are a "simpleton"? What an infantile, one dimensional little mind that you have. Grow up, fool.
LOL... Take care, AC, you'll run pretty quick of straws at the rate you are building your arguments.
Let's see. I don't know what Fitwatch is about, but I imagine:
if Fitwatch are non-legit, the british police does a pretty crappy job not going to arrest them and just (ineffectively) trying to silence them. Does it seem to you as a very sophisticated and grown up approach from their side? Addressing a manifestation and not the cause of the problem?
if Fitwatch are just "speech criminals", defending the british police in their actions doesn't seem to me as being a grown-up reaction from your side, mate. Or is the IngSoc starting to become a reality already?
If their sympathizers are determined, I don't think this is going to do.
Here: just include in the content of a page of the site an improbable search phrase and send the page to Google for indexing. All it takes is a few links from outside (say, ten sympathizers linking from 40 sites/forums/slashdot) and, together with the improbable search phrase your site will be the top of Google search.
They're simple minds eh? Do you know what ironyis?
Let's see... How the solutions you listed work in the conditions of TDL DNS refusing to identify the domain as registered? Ah, I see, not only that you need to host your site elsewhere, but you need to raise a rogue DNS (outside the official hierarchy) and ask everyone interested in your site to trust it?
Many, many rogues sites don't have a fixed IP.
(methinks: the specific difference between these guys and rogue sites: their listeners. The bot herder sites can afford to use rogue DNS-es, after all the ones to trust the rogue DNS are the pieces of malware infecting the computers).
But tell you what: let's see if we can come with better ways to fail their scheme. Who's picking the gauntlet?
Here's an idea (DNS using SEO techniques): how about a group of sympathizers include in their web pages links to the IP-only URL but associating it with the name of the site (or an improbable search phrase in the content of the site)? Then Google will do the job and sorta act as a DNS substitute. Will they seize google.co.uk?
Two weeks ago, Fitwatch, a site dedicated to campaigning against what it sees as heavy-handed practices by police surveillance units, was taken down by its UK-based web hosting company,
With its domain name suspended, the only way for visitors to find a rogue site would be to type in its lengthy (and decidedly less memorable) numeric IP address.
This shows how well prepared is the british police to deal with matters regarding the internet: I reckon they never heard of the hosts file or, for an URL only, favorites.
Such simple minds... life for them must be a permanent bliss.
Under normal circumstances, I'd agree.
However, I don't think I've seen many corporate mid-managers (IT or not) over a certain age that don't know how to cover their ass, win a medal in finger pointing games, be proficient in throwing the hot ball in another court and other such corporate Olympic games. Simply, those that are not decent competitors in these games don't get to be managers for long enough...
And it is only natural to be so, because a corporate world is stabler on long term, thus the Peter Principle has longer time to act and "sediment" the people in their spots.
A farmer near me had to save a young calf from coyotes. Children are less safe from coyotes than they are from like-sized domestic dogs, such as pit bulls.
TFS (citing TFA) uses "he" in referring to the coyote... which induces the idea of being actually a person. I can almost hear: Yeah, you see... this one is highly trained, has already signed a work contract and is bound by the "public servant" laws to do minimal harm... And you, sir, seems to suggest discriminatory practices, you can't do that... is against the law and not "politically correct" (should have referred to him as a "dog of North American Indigenous descendence")
Working on that too. Sometimes the form letter reply seems like someone might have actually read it, sometimes it thanks me for supporting exactly what I wrote to oppose or vice versa.
Congrats. On the receiving thanks for supporting what you oppose, it can mean:
1. a message to you, in allusive terms, of "Buddy, you better switch your opinion to the opposite, 'cause I won;t change mine. Thank you in advance for doing switching"
2. they rely on formal (auto-responding like) letters. They might or might not have read your letter at all, you can't know for sure
3. your form of expression in your original letter is not straightly making your point.
If you are sure the 3rd point doesn't apply, my suggestion is to follow up with another letter on the lines of: "Buddy, in regards with your answer, you can be damn'd sure you'll count one less vote at next election" - that is: explicitly let them know your disappointment.
Then take an extra next step, and instead of "let them do something"... ask them to do something... you know? like write a letter to your congressman. And ask others that agree with you to do the same.
Then let them *do something* like spending all that money on medical scans for people who actually need them. Unlike the scans for terrorists, the medical scans might actually turn up something useful.
That would be sensible, and unfortunately politics and bureaucracy are not driven by common-sense. Here: it would be sensible for you not to vote candidates which, once elected, run amok in spending on crazy thing... now, good luck with that.
Either way, it's time to defund the TSA and Homeland Security. They're the biggest laughingstock of the security world since Windows XP.
You should let this kind of comparisons to the bad_analogy_guy. In my eyes TSA and Homeland security is more like UAC in Vista, XP is more like US pre-9/11.
That's assuming that "damage" is the goal. If the goal is simply "disrupting commuter traffic and costing the country a small fortune while messing up the infrastructure at random intervals" they can achieve the same thing with no explosion and no derailing, just something that looks vaguely bomb-like.
guess what - we are being conditioned and paralized by fear. everything that those that came before us fought for, we are gladly surrendering and at a rapid rate, too.
Ah, US of America... the land of the home and free of the brave.
Slashdot Mirror
The main problem is that after numerous years of life-experience, you start realizing what unbelievable sacks of shit most people truly are. If YOU get to live forever, you're going to have to deal with THEM forever too.
If I'd know I'm to live forever, I might not get desperate and try to deal with all the sacks of shit in this world: you know, if you don't need to compromise (like: life is too short and you still want a home by the time your 35) then you might decide to just not compromise... what's the rush?
I think you missed the point.
Maybe.
The idea was that if you go to college you won't have to take a job that required you to be out in the rain and cold at 0400. The main point, however, was that no matter what job you accept, you should be honorable enough to do that job well, even when the conditions aren't to your liking. You've accepted a wage to provide a service. It is now your responsibility to provide that service to the best of your ability.
Totally agree: either you keep your part of the bargain or you get out of the bargain.
The original post made a total trash of the poster (on good grounds, I'm not denying it) and mentioned nothing about the responsibility of the company that hired the handler. I mean, the OP (shoutingly) "PAID FOR THE SERVICE", the only thing the post failed to notice: the OP paid the company, not the shity handler. Therefore, if the OP needs to shout to somebody, it is the company that need to be shouted to in the first place - it is the company that failed to keep their end of bargain with him.
As for the handler: with the attitude shown, I'm more affraid of a situation in which he would have had a degree (with the mindset at that time): having a job with more responsibility and adopting the position of "screw you" might have caused more damage. That's not to say his post doesn't worth the +X Informative: even if not pleasant, it cast a light on some reasons/causes for the situation; but who has the best chances to address it? (my point: it's still the employer).
Do you suggest graduating a college boost you resistance to hypothermia?
Maybe college isn't such a bad idea.
That's not my point.
My point: no matter the degree of the persons in charge of the freight, a way of motivating them to do a proper job is in the hands of the company - I fail to see how one can blame exclusively the handler and totally disregard the role of company.
To illustrate: you think the solution to have the parcels delivered undamaged is to have everybody get a college degree? Assuming this would happen... what, are the parcels magically delivered themselves in pristine conditions, no matter the weather or time of the day (night, for the matter at hand)?
Yep. Came here to post this. Sep 3, 1752 thru Sep 13, 1752 were so uneventful that they decided to remove the days from the calendar.
:) Nope, can't be! The Sep 3 1752 is the date the Anglican churches decided to finally adopt the Gregorian calendar. :)
:) Your cal must be protestant. Somehow, still better than a Russian orthodox cal, but worse than an Irish Catholic one :)
Were you intentionally being funny about the rate of speed and the deceleration not being the same thing? If so, kudos.
Funny as it would this pseudo-redundant (leading to a contradiction) form, I'm not quite convinced that what kills you is exclusively the force (proportional with deceleration) or the shock (acceleration/deceleration rate) has also something to do with it.
Tough shit you little pussy. It is not the customers fault your job is shit and you weren't smart enough to go to college
Wow. Do you suggest graduating a college boost you resistance to hypothermia? Or somebody (college graduate or not) would love to load parcels into the plane?
Because the cause that I see is: highly qualified or not, such a job would require better motivation for those doing it. Maybe if the company hiring them would spend a bit more from the money you(we) paid through the your(our) nose to pay the loaders better, the parcels will be better handled? Maybe the very company you think is slammed has part of the responsibility?
... on the calendar in use today by the western civilization: 5 Oct 1582 to 14 Oct 1582 inclusive. ( :) and, yet, I didn't ask for research funds to feed the computer to reach this 'True knowledge'...)
[Terri Dowerty director at ARCHRights] ...added that the fact that there is not a 90 day consultation "sets a dangerous president and is a very depressing sign of the new Government, which promised transparency."
Would a consultation of 120 days will still set a president that's dangerous?
... an Apple product? Clearly, we are approaching Dec 21 2012 quite fast.
Or alternate root DNS servers?
You know, that used to sound like a really stupid idea. Now I am not so sure.
Here mate. Just put the entry most convenient to you as the first entry in your DNS list.
Or alternate root DNS servers?
You know, that used to sound like a really stupid idea. Now I am not so sure.
Others are sure of the contrary.
I can only assume there's a Mildly Worrying Organised Crime Agency?
Just MiniLuv. The Minitrue is on the way.
TFA - So your definition of a sophisticated mind does not encompass one that can deal with murdered children, mob control, terrorism or any other of the myriad issues a modern police officer has to deal with.. in your world if you are not IT savvy you are a "simpleton"? What an infantile, one dimensional little mind that you have. Grow up, fool.
LOL... Take care, AC, you'll run pretty quick of straws at the rate you are building your arguments.
Let's see. I don't know what Fitwatch is about, but I imagine:
If their sympathizers are determined, I don't think this is going to do.
Here: just include in the content of a page of the site an improbable search phrase and send the page to Google for indexing. All it takes is a few links from outside (say, ten sympathizers linking from 40 sites/forums/slashdot) and, together with the improbable search phrase your site will be the top of Google search.
They're simple minds eh? Do you know what irony is?
Let's see... How the solutions you listed work in the conditions of TDL DNS refusing to identify the domain as registered?
Ah, I see, not only that you need to host your site elsewhere, but you need to raise a rogue DNS (outside the official hierarchy) and ask everyone interested in your site to trust it?
Many, many rogues sites don't have a fixed IP.
(methinks: the specific difference between these guys and rogue sites: their listeners. The bot herder sites can afford to use rogue DNS-es, after all the ones to trust the rogue DNS are the pieces of malware infecting the computers).
But tell you what: let's see if we can come with better ways to fail their scheme. Who's picking the gauntlet?
Here's an idea (DNS using SEO techniques): how about a group of sympathizers include in their web pages links to the IP-only URL but associating it with the name of the site (or an improbable search phrase in the content of the site)? Then Google will do the job and sorta act as a DNS substitute.
Will they seize google.co.uk?
Two weeks ago, Fitwatch, a site dedicated to campaigning against what it sees as heavy-handed practices by police surveillance units, was taken down by its UK-based web hosting company,
With its domain name suspended, the only way for visitors to find a rogue site would be to type in its lengthy (and decidedly less memorable) numeric IP address.
This shows how well prepared is the british police to deal with matters regarding the internet: I reckon they never heard of the hosts file or, for an URL only, favorites.
Such simple minds... life for them must be a permanent bliss.
Nope. Upper management will fire you instead....
Under normal circumstances, I'd agree.
However, I don't think I've seen many corporate mid-managers (IT or not) over a certain age that don't know how to cover their ass, win a medal in finger pointing games, be proficient in throwing the hot ball in another court and other such corporate Olympic games. Simply, those that are not decent competitors in these games don't get to be managers for long enough...
And it is only natural to be so, because a corporate world is stabler on long term, thus the Peter Principle has longer time to act and "sediment" the people in their spots.
A farmer near me had to save a young calf from coyotes. Children are less safe from coyotes than they are from like-sized domestic dogs, such as pit bulls.
TFS (citing TFA) uses "he" in referring to the coyote... which induces the idea of being actually a person. I can almost hear:
Yeah, you see... this one is highly trained, has already signed a work contract and is bound by the "public servant" laws to do minimal harm... And you, sir, seems to suggest discriminatory practices, you can't do that... is against the law and not "politically correct" (should have referred to him as a "dog of North American Indigenous descendence")
Working on that too. Sometimes the form letter reply seems like someone might have actually read it, sometimes it thanks me for supporting exactly what I wrote to oppose or vice versa.
Congrats. On the receiving thanks for supporting what you oppose, it can mean:
1. a message to you, in allusive terms, of "Buddy, you better switch your opinion to the opposite, 'cause I won;t change mine. Thank you in advance for doing switching"
2. they rely on formal (auto-responding like) letters. They might or might not have read your letter at all, you can't know for sure
3. your form of expression in your original letter is not straightly making your point.
If you are sure the 3rd point doesn't apply, my suggestion is to follow up with another letter on the lines of: "Buddy, in regards with your answer, you can be damn'd sure you'll count one less vote at next election" - that is: explicitly let them know your disappointment.
Then take an extra next step, and instead of "let them do something" ... ask them to do something... you know? like write a letter to your congressman. And ask others that agree with you to do the same.
Then let them *do something* like spending all that money on medical scans for people who actually need them. Unlike the scans for terrorists, the medical scans might actually turn up something useful.
That would be sensible, and unfortunately politics and bureaucracy are not driven by common-sense.
Here: it would be sensible for you not to vote candidates which, once elected, run amok in spending on crazy thing... now, good luck with that.
Either way, it's time to defund the TSA and Homeland Security. They're the biggest laughingstock of the security world since Windows XP.
You should let this kind of comparisons to the bad_analogy_guy. In my eyes TSA and Homeland security is more like UAC in Vista, XP is more like US pre-9/11.
That's assuming that "damage" is the goal. If the goal is simply "disrupting commuter traffic and costing the country a small fortune while messing up the infrastructure at random intervals" they can achieve the same thing with no explosion and no derailing, just something that looks vaguely bomb-like.
I say... better use high frequency trading.
guess what - we are being conditioned and paralized by fear. everything that those that came before us fought for, we are gladly surrendering and at a rapid rate, too.
Ah, US of America... the land of the home and free of the brave.