you really shouldn't let your experiences with a single phsyician dictate your perception of the entire scientific/medical establishment
Anecdotal evidence rules the world. When will you scientists learn? That's why seagate is better than maxtor (TWO maxtor drives died on me last year, but my seagate didn't). It's also why the american military is evil (select violations of standard operating procedure, rules of engagement, and geneva conventions). Hell, it's the same reason sizzler is a shitty restaurant (I got food poisononing there once).
"Those poor ID suporters where traumatized by their priests when they were kids. Why, with all the water torture, fingernail tearing out, poking with red hot irons, and tearing off of tits, and having to confess things weekly on top of all that! Can you blame them for not cracking up? Well, that, and those damned priests molested people so bad the poor kids chose to lobotomize themselves.
*tear* Those poor ID suporters dont even have the brain cells left to realize their mass contradictions that, at best they worship an alien that genetically enginered us, the Goa'uld. 'All bow before your God!'"
I tried, but I still can't make this post sensible. At least the grammar and spelling are somewhat understandable, though. Sorry, I'm no miracle worker.
Ah, true, I should've read your first comment that way.
I still say that in real life there aren't a bunch of NSA mercenaries that'd gladly kill any American that pissed them off, though.
Somebody intelligent and productive enough to develop something like that is going to be highly valuable though. Even though he could never take it commercial, he could simply stop developing new stuff for the NSA. He'd probably be given a new contract with more pay simply to gurantee that he'll stay there longer.
Yes, but I thought it was rather unrealistic. Any self-respecting cryptologic organization would give the young man a security clearance and let him work his magic. If they really think he's a threat, their best bet would be to lock him in one of those windowless buildings and make him check his email 500 times a day. That'll destroy him mentally faster than a lobotomy.
No, you seem to be fairly intelligent, logical, and nonjudgemental.
And I agree entirely with you, other than your "would not let my children see/hear" ideas. I think it's important for them to see nudity and know it's natural and normal, not to be ashamed of their bodies or think it's "weird". I also feel letting kids hear foul language on TV gives you the chance to tell them how stupid you think it sounds. They're going to hear it eventually, so it may as well be in your home on television from some stupid stereotypical gangster who's getting chased by the cops. That's a good time to explain why it's a bad idea to act like that. Maybe mention that the character dropped out of school at 13.
I also see sex as a completely natural thing. Hopefully you do too, since you have kids. I don't know if I'd want to have to explain goatse or tubgirl to my kid, though. But the typical TV sex scene just shows a couple getting naked (without even showing much), getting into bed, kissing various body parts you can see at the beach anyways, then cuddling or smoking cigarettes. I think I'd be more concerned about my daughter being desperate to have marry prince charming and have kids.
With all of that being said, this issue is solely for individual parents to decide. If you want to raise your kids thinking it's bad to see a naked body, I won't stop you. Perhaps if I was still in high school and your daughter was as well, but that's a different (inevitable) situation. I'm concerned that, once again, the FCC is expanding their power based on petitions from religious groups. This has never turned out good for me before, and I don't think it will this time, either. Something tells me the 501(c)3 networks, like Pat Robertson's show, are going to be free or near-free, and Discovery+TLC+The History Channel is going to cost me more than the previous package deal. This is also the FCC interfering with cable programming.
I guess what I'm trying to say is it's the wrong people doing this for the wrong reasons, and that's a very bad combination. The cable companies should've done it years ago to increase revenue and decrease costs. The FCC doing it because religious organizations asked them to, as well as expanding their powers, concerns me greatly.
They took the time to explain the difference between fantasy and reality to me when I was a kid.
Ahh, but that'd be BAD for a religion to teach. I imagine their numbers would dwindle rather quickly. It's easier for them to attack the fantasies that disagree with their own as "bad". I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but "An unrealistic or improbable supposition" and "An imagined event or sequence of mental images... usually fulfilling a psychological need" are both definitions of fantasy, and nobody argues that the ancient religions were all fantasies. Sorry if I wasn't born creative enough to see the difference between fairies and angels (other than the size).
Don't get me wrong, I think religion is a wonderful idea. It helps people deal with tragic events and comes up with meaning for them. It can also be used to establish good moral guidelines for people. I just believe we should strive to understand the former and create a better, nonjudgemental legal system for the latter.
What I'll never understand, though, is that anyone of drinking age who is watching football (and doesn't have anything moral or medical that keeps them from drinking) already has a beer in his hand, knows what beer he likes, and isn't going to be persuaded to switch from Miller to Bud just because of the half-naked sexy women surrounding Bernie Mac. Duh!:-)
No, but your son who grows up seeing you drinking Bud and then sees and hears the commercials for it while you watch football together will probably grow up to drink Bud.
Probably for the same reason Ariel Sharon would be concerned if Hitler offered to bake him cookies.
We've been begging for a la carte TV pricing for years, but now we're getting it because the fundamentalists lobbied for it. Of course everyone else is going to support it, no matter what the actual fine text of it reads. I don't quite know how, but I have a feeling this is going to end up hurting us.
Am I the only one concerned that this appears to be coming about from the efforts to protect Joe Righteous from "harmful" television instead of a desire to protect the consumer from price gouging package deals?
Be careful with USB and firewire-attached hard drives. Find the controller chip in the product you're attempting to buy and make sure to do proper research into it. A lot of controllers, such as the Prolific Logic PL-3507, have terrible problems which include delayed write failure errors and eventual loss of file tables. There are firmware updates for some of these chips, but I'm still scared shitless of using them again. I've lost three hard drives on USB 2.0 and 1394 controllers, and I was never able to recover the data from the first one.
... bit if they're determined to screw honest people over this badly, send him to Canada. We like the cut of his jib.
No. Thanks for the offer, though. We'll keep him here. We are sending Michael Moore over soon, though. If we can ever get Steven Seagal and Keanu Reeves out of their fantasy worlds we're sending them over, too. Then we'll finally have something to make fun of you canucks for:).
I'm not sure why. I agree with everything you've said in this post, except I think the city would have sank regardless of the destruction of the wetlands. Other than that I disagree on what to do about it, but only because I prefer to make positive changes rather than serve as a warning for others.
I do disagree with your prediction about America deciding not to rebuild New Orleans because they're cheap and shortsighted. I think, because they're cheap and shortsighted, they're going to rebuild the city, but they're not going to do a very good job. It will get destroyed again in the future, but not until it's been at least partially rebuilt. But at least that'll give people decently paying construction jobs and the politicians a place to spend that huge budget surplus.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Californians pay the same federal taxes that the rest of the county does, and state and local taxes don't pay for things outside the state. I just don't see how that's relevant to a discussion of state vs federal responsibility.
You're wrong:). It's almost impossible to really measure tax burdens, but I've spent a lot of time looking into this, and have some great references somewhere. I'll post another reply if I can find them, but I'll try to explain things as well as I can and help you find the actual data if you're interested.
Basically Californians make a lot more money than most people. This is true. This also means most californians are in the highest of federal tax brackets. I have friends who make ~$100,000/year and can't afford to buy a house. They're being taxed a good $40K or more of that federally, with a large additional state and sales tax burden. Prices are also much higher here, with rent for single bedroom apartments exceeding $1400/month in a lot of places. Gasoline costs a lot more. So does insurance. Obviously water and electricity are also more expensive.
A lot of states also receive what I like to refer to as subsidies and indirect rebates. North Dakota is a great example of this. The federal government spends more there than they collect from ND so, in effect, they're pumping free money into the economy. California pays a lot more than it receives. Money is given to individual states by politicians fighting for their companies and locations, for military installations as well as large contracts being awarded to companies in those areas. Since most of the federal budget is spent domestically, with the exception of the direct foreign aid and charity we participate in, the tax money is supposed to simply flow back into the economies from whence they came. For some states, such as California, it's a disproportionately small return, which is not only unfair but acting as a leech on the economy. Most people consider this "taking from the rich and giving to the poor", which I disagree with to begin with, but this is much worse, since Californians really aren't all that rich. Being a millionaire in California means you own your own home. Being a millionaire in Louisiana means you own half the town or a fairly large business. The salaries sound large on paper, and $50,000 of post-tax money sounds like a lot to play with, but when your bills total $45,000 a year for BASIC living expenses (car, food, roof, insurance, etc.)... Well, I'm sure you get the point.
I'm not sure why most of the country hates California so much. It's been pretty silent about being blatantly robbed by the federal government and energy companies. Most californians I've met have been friendly, typical Americans and not had a large ego at all. I think most people who live in California love it because it is a great place, geographically speaking, and Californians obviously take pride in it and prefer to live there otherwise they wouldn't. I really do miss the place, but I still prefer my tropical islands:).
I agree entirely. The situation in California is also going to be very bad if nothing is done about the water. Telling people to abandon the entire state is even more absurd than telling people in NO to leave the city and not come back. The state and its industries are absolutely vital to the nation, just like the port and refineries in New Orleans are.
I personally feel it's stupid to live at the base of a volcano, and I see New Orleans in a similar light. I would never buy property there, because I can tell you with certainty that this WILL happen again. I can't tell you when, but I know it will. The city is going to become a sunken city in the middle of the ocean unless we develop the technology to raise the elevation a few hundred feet and stop the sinking. That being said, there are a lot of people who live there and can't afford to simply up and move, and there's no where for them to go. The city's refineries and other resources have proven vital to the country, and definitely fall in the realm of national responsibility. Just keep in mind that, eventually, the city really needs to be abandoned. It's the only logical choice.
California is a similar, if converse, problem on a much larger scale. It's one of the largest states, but also responsible for a huge percentage of the american industry and GDP. Its ports are of vital importance, as well as many of its natural resources. People from around the country are moving there because it is extremely habitable, and there are a lot of great jobs to be had. These people are sucking up a lot of water, and wasting a lot at that. So it's partially their fault, the same way New Orleans' destruction is partially the fault of the residents, army corps of engineers, and mainly the politicians. But something as simple as a mass exodus from California to the rest of the country would completely fuck the American economy for a long time. Not only would housing costs quickly double, but vital industries and businesses would be severely restricted, or simply cease operations for a period of time. Combine that with the fact that it's not JUST California, but Nevada and Arizona and the whole region, and you quickly have a national crisis looming.
I hope that clears things up some. California could become a much larger disaster if something really bad happened, like the water sources being destroyed by earthquake, volcano, or terrorist activity, and it's going to take more than just californians conserving more water to solve that problem.
Gah! Wash your hands, e.coli boy! I wish we bowed in the west instead of shook hands, there are so many dirty people out there.
I just don't see the need if I don't touch any handrails, don't touch the toilet, and only touch my zipper and boxers. It's the equivalent of peeing on a tree in the forest while you're on a hike. Unless you pissed all over yourself, you didn't touch anything dirty. I wash my hands frequently but I do believe it's not necessary just because matter left my body.
Exactly. Despite the opinions of many Californians I've met, the universe does not revolve solely around them, or their state. Water shortages are rarely an issue in the U.S., outside of California (and I suspect probably mostly only Southern California) and the Southwestern states -- the only exception being the odd seasonal shortage during a bad summer drought in other places, or if the water supply is contaminated for some reason.
In any event, this seems like an issue that should be dealt with on the local municipal level, and certainly not on a Federal one. There are no water shortages in my area, and I have no desire to switch to a different design of toilet that wouldn't have any advantage to me and would just mean a lot of additional complexity, and I would take a very dim view of any legislation that tried to force this. If people who choose to live in places essentially unsuited to human habitation have problems with their water supply, obviously their governments should address these issues. But it's not a universal problem, and it does no good to make it one artificially.
Exactly. Despite the opinions of many New Orleaners I've met, the universe does not revolve solely around them, or their city. Hurricanes are rarely an issue in the U.S.., outside of the gulf states -- the only exception being the odd seasonal hurricane that comes up and the atlantic and strikes a northern state.
In any event, this seems like an issue that should be dealt with on the local municipal level, and certainly not on a Federal one. There are no hurricanes in my area, and I have no desire to subsidize the south when it wouldn't have any advantage to me and would just mean a lot of additional tax burden, and I would take a very dim view of any legislation that tried to force this. If people who choose to live in hurricane-prone places essentially unsuited to human habitation have problems with their weather, obviously their governments should address these issues. But it's not a universal problem, and it does no good to make it one artificially.
I hope you get the point I'm trying to make. California is responsible for a lot more than its share of America's industry, technology, agriculture, and GDP. Just like a major disaster striking a major port is going to cause damage to the entire nation, so would any change in the way the agriculture and industry operates in California. I don't think the stock market would fair too well if California became unproductive due to drought. This problem is also not limited to California (see Nevada), and could end up causing problems elsewhere as well. California doesn't ask for federal help all that often, and usually ends up getting turned down or completely fucked over (see the energy crisis and rolling blackouts in 2001-2002) by the rest of the country. Their tax burden is among the highest, and every year California is subsidizing the states that are hit by hurricanes, helping rebuild the rest of the country, and chugging along. Eventually this is going to become a disaster. We know that. We knew it would happen in New Orleans, but nobody wanted to move and nobody wanted to improve the levees. Now the rest of the country is footing the bill, bitching and moaning about nobody doing anything sooner. This mandatory water conservation is somebody seeing a huge future disaster, KNOWING it's coming, and offering a solution that will help avoid it. Now everyone is whining because it doesn't affect them [yet] and blaming California?
That being said I had these waterless urinals at my job for a couple of years and I really liked them. They didn't smell at all, and I didn't even feel the need to wash my hands afterwards since I didn't have to touch the door handle, the urinal, or anything other than my zipper and boxer shorts. A couple of times they did get backed up for some reason and when you peed into them the blue oily stuff would come up out of the hole. But it never overflowed, and it just drained back down after a minute or less. But these were heavily used urinals, with hundreds of people using three of them, and I only saw that happen a few times. I'm sure it saved thousands of gallons of water, and I wouldn't mind using them again.
I'm not a newcomer. I'm saying the internet wasn't popular and mainstream until around 1999-2000, and online dating DEFINITELY wasn't socially respectable yet, so anyone who was online at that time meeting potential partners instead of trying to find porn was a nerd.
I'm not saying your wife is a complete nerd. I'm saying your wife must have a little bit of nerd in her because she was doing things like that online before it became the best place to buy a Coach purse.
Please excuse the long sentences and bad grammar, I just woke up.
And upon hiring them employers (such as myself - I admit) may find that they are stinky geeks with no regard for rules and team and formality.
No offense, but you smell like a PHB to me. Rules and formality mean shit when it comes down to how good a product is or how efficiently it's produced. Now if it's a rule like "don't stick your hand in the lion's cage" I understand, but if it's along the lines of "Click OK after typing in your name and password - don't hit tab-enter!", well, that just gets in the way of accomplishing tasks. A good work environment should allow the lowest employee to say "Hi John" to their boss instead of "Good morning, Mr. Anderson. I hope you're doing well, sir, it's a pleasure to work for you (please don't fire me)."
Teamwork is very important, though. That being said, some jobs are better handled by one person with another reviewing the finished work for errors.
My interpretation of your demand for "formal structured diplomatic approach" is that you want them to be more respectful, take the words of management as gospel, and be friendly to everyone. The first two are simply designed to make you feel better about yourself, and really don't add to productivity. These are skills they've learned sucking up to various teachers and professors throughout their educations. Social skills are important in many environments, but sometimes it's better to teach social skills to someone highly skilled than to teach skills to someone highly sociable.
I guess what I'm saying is I'd rather hire the introverted geek and slowly get him out of his shell than deal with a note-taking socially-adept college kid who spent five years drinking on daddy's dime. I hope your hiring approach works well for your company or department.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you still have the script?
Anecdotal evidence rules the world. When will you scientists learn? That's why seagate is better than maxtor (TWO maxtor drives died on me last year, but my seagate didn't). It's also why the american military is evil (select violations of standard operating procedure, rules of engagement, and geneva conventions). Hell, it's the same reason sizzler is a shitty restaurant (I got food poisononing there once).
Let me help.
"Those poor ID suporters where traumatized by their priests when they were kids. Why, with all the water torture, fingernail tearing out, poking with red hot irons, and tearing off of tits, and having to confess things weekly on top of all that! Can you blame them for not cracking up? Well, that, and those damned priests molested people so bad the poor kids chose to lobotomize themselves.
*tear* Those poor ID suporters dont even have the brain cells left to realize their mass contradictions that, at best they worship an alien that genetically enginered us, the Goa'uld. 'All bow before your God!'"
I tried, but I still can't make this post sensible. At least the grammar and spelling are somewhat understandable, though. Sorry, I'm no miracle worker.
Ah, true, I should've read your first comment that way.
I still say that in real life there aren't a bunch of NSA mercenaries that'd gladly kill any American that pissed them off, though.
Somebody intelligent and productive enough to develop something like that is going to be highly valuable though. Even though he could never take it commercial, he could simply stop developing new stuff for the NSA. He'd probably be given a new contract with more pay simply to gurantee that he'll stay there longer.
Yes, but I thought it was rather unrealistic. Any self-respecting cryptologic organization would give the young man a security clearance and let him work his magic. If they really think he's a threat, their best bet would be to lock him in one of those windowless buildings and make him check his email 500 times a day. That'll destroy him mentally faster than a lobotomy.
Unless that someone worked for the National Security Agency.
Not true! They'd most certainly tell their boss about it, especially when discussing future salaries and promotions.
No, you seem to be fairly intelligent, logical, and nonjudgemental.
And I agree entirely with you, other than your "would not let my children see/hear" ideas. I think it's important for them to see nudity and know it's natural and normal, not to be ashamed of their bodies or think it's "weird". I also feel letting kids hear foul language on TV gives you the chance to tell them how stupid you think it sounds. They're going to hear it eventually, so it may as well be in your home on television from some stupid stereotypical gangster who's getting chased by the cops. That's a good time to explain why it's a bad idea to act like that. Maybe mention that the character dropped out of school at 13.
I also see sex as a completely natural thing. Hopefully you do too, since you have kids. I don't know if I'd want to have to explain goatse or tubgirl to my kid, though. But the typical TV sex scene just shows a couple getting naked (without even showing much), getting into bed, kissing various body parts you can see at the beach anyways, then cuddling or smoking cigarettes. I think I'd be more concerned about my daughter being desperate to have marry prince charming and have kids.
With all of that being said, this issue is solely for individual parents to decide. If you want to raise your kids thinking it's bad to see a naked body, I won't stop you. Perhaps if I was still in high school and your daughter was as well, but that's a different (inevitable) situation. I'm concerned that, once again, the FCC is expanding their power based on petitions from religious groups. This has never turned out good for me before, and I don't think it will this time, either. Something tells me the 501(c)3 networks, like Pat Robertson's show, are going to be free or near-free, and Discovery+TLC+The History Channel is going to cost me more than the previous package deal. This is also the FCC interfering with cable programming.
I guess what I'm trying to say is it's the wrong people doing this for the wrong reasons, and that's a very bad combination. The cable companies should've done it years ago to increase revenue and decrease costs. The FCC doing it because religious organizations asked them to, as well as expanding their powers, concerns me greatly.
Ahh, but that'd be BAD for a religion to teach. I imagine their numbers would dwindle rather quickly. It's easier for them to attack the fantasies that disagree with their own as "bad". I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but "An unrealistic or improbable supposition" and "An imagined event or sequence of mental images... usually fulfilling a psychological need" are both definitions of fantasy, and nobody argues that the ancient religions were all fantasies. Sorry if I wasn't born creative enough to see the difference between fairies and angels (other than the size).
Don't get me wrong, I think religion is a wonderful idea. It helps people deal with tragic events and comes up with meaning for them. It can also be used to establish good moral guidelines for people. I just believe we should strive to understand the former and create a better, nonjudgemental legal system for the latter.
No, but your son who grows up seeing you drinking Bud and then sees and hears the commercials for it while you watch football together will probably grow up to drink Bud.
Probably for the same reason Ariel Sharon would be concerned if Hitler offered to bake him cookies.
We've been begging for a la carte TV pricing for years, but now we're getting it because the fundamentalists lobbied for it. Of course everyone else is going to support it, no matter what the actual fine text of it reads. I don't quite know how, but I have a feeling this is going to end up hurting us.
Am I the only one concerned that this appears to be coming about from the efforts to protect Joe Righteous from "harmful" television instead of a desire to protect the consumer from price gouging package deals?
I'm sure somebody with a single-digit slashdot ID could argue the trolls point.
Be careful with USB and firewire-attached hard drives. Find the controller chip in the product you're attempting to buy and make sure to do proper research into it. A lot of controllers, such as the Prolific Logic PL-3507, have terrible problems which include delayed write failure errors and eventual loss of file tables. There are firmware updates for some of these chips, but I'm still scared shitless of using them again. I've lost three hard drives on USB 2.0 and 1394 controllers, and I was never able to recover the data from the first one.
No. Thanks for the offer, though. We'll keep him here. We are sending Michael Moore over soon, though. If we can ever get Steven Seagal and Keanu Reeves out of their fantasy worlds we're sending them over, too. Then we'll finally have something to make fun of you canucks for
I'm not sure why. I agree with everything you've said in this post, except I think the city would have sank regardless of the destruction of the wetlands. Other than that I disagree on what to do about it, but only because I prefer to make positive changes rather than serve as a warning for others.
I do disagree with your prediction about America deciding not to rebuild New Orleans because they're cheap and shortsighted. I think, because they're cheap and shortsighted, they're going to rebuild the city, but they're not going to do a very good job. It will get destroyed again in the future, but not until it's been at least partially rebuilt. But at least that'll give people decently paying construction jobs and the politicians a place to spend that huge budget surplus.
It's a no-flush urinal :). The urine drains itself rather quickly through the blue stuff. When I use a toilet I do wash my hands.
Quinn for president!
You're wrong
Basically Californians make a lot more money than most people. This is true. This also means most californians are in the highest of federal tax brackets. I have friends who make ~$100,000/year and can't afford to buy a house. They're being taxed a good $40K or more of that federally, with a large additional state and sales tax burden. Prices are also much higher here, with rent for single bedroom apartments exceeding $1400/month in a lot of places. Gasoline costs a lot more. So does insurance. Obviously water and electricity are also more expensive.
A lot of states also receive what I like to refer to as subsidies and indirect rebates. North Dakota is a great example of this. The federal government spends more there than they collect from ND so, in effect, they're pumping free money into the economy. California pays a lot more than it receives. Money is given to individual states by politicians fighting for their companies and locations, for military installations as well as large contracts being awarded to companies in those areas. Since most of the federal budget is spent domestically, with the exception of the direct foreign aid and charity we participate in, the tax money is supposed to simply flow back into the economies from whence they came. For some states, such as California, it's a disproportionately small return, which is not only unfair but acting as a leech on the economy. Most people consider this "taking from the rich and giving to the poor", which I disagree with to begin with, but this is much worse, since Californians really aren't all that rich. Being a millionaire in California means you own your own home. Being a millionaire in Louisiana means you own half the town or a fairly large business. The salaries sound large on paper, and $50,000 of post-tax money sounds like a lot to play with, but when your bills total $45,000 a year for BASIC living expenses (car, food, roof, insurance, etc.)... Well, I'm sure you get the point.
I'm not sure why most of the country hates California so much. It's been pretty silent about being blatantly robbed by the federal government and energy companies. Most californians I've met have been friendly, typical Americans and not had a large ego at all. I think most people who live in California love it because it is a great place, geographically speaking, and Californians obviously take pride in it and prefer to live there otherwise they wouldn't. I really do miss the place, but I still prefer my tropical islands
I agree entirely. The situation in California is also going to be very bad if nothing is done about the water. Telling people to abandon the entire state is even more absurd than telling people in NO to leave the city and not come back. The state and its industries are absolutely vital to the nation, just like the port and refineries in New Orleans are.
I personally feel it's stupid to live at the base of a volcano, and I see New Orleans in a similar light. I would never buy property there, because I can tell you with certainty that this WILL happen again. I can't tell you when, but I know it will. The city is going to become a sunken city in the middle of the ocean unless we develop the technology to raise the elevation a few hundred feet and stop the sinking. That being said, there are a lot of people who live there and can't afford to simply up and move, and there's no where for them to go. The city's refineries and other resources have proven vital to the country, and definitely fall in the realm of national responsibility. Just keep in mind that, eventually, the city really needs to be abandoned. It's the only logical choice.
California is a similar, if converse, problem on a much larger scale. It's one of the largest states, but also responsible for a huge percentage of the american industry and GDP. Its ports are of vital importance, as well as many of its natural resources. People from around the country are moving there because it is extremely habitable, and there are a lot of great jobs to be had. These people are sucking up a lot of water, and wasting a lot at that. So it's partially their fault, the same way New Orleans' destruction is partially the fault of the residents, army corps of engineers, and mainly the politicians. But something as simple as a mass exodus from California to the rest of the country would completely fuck the American economy for a long time. Not only would housing costs quickly double, but vital industries and businesses would be severely restricted, or simply cease operations for a period of time. Combine that with the fact that it's not JUST California, but Nevada and Arizona and the whole region, and you quickly have a national crisis looming.
I hope that clears things up some. California could become a much larger disaster if something really bad happened, like the water sources being destroyed by earthquake, volcano, or terrorist activity, and it's going to take more than just californians conserving more water to solve that problem.
I just don't see the need if I don't touch any handrails, don't touch the toilet, and only touch my zipper and boxers. It's the equivalent of peeing on a tree in the forest while you're on a hike. Unless you pissed all over yourself, you didn't touch anything dirty. I wash my hands frequently but I do believe it's not necessary just because matter left my body.
Thank you. My point exactly, only with less words and more clarity.
Exactly. Despite the opinions of many New Orleaners I've met, the universe does not revolve solely around them, or their city. Hurricanes are rarely an issue in the U.S.., outside of the gulf states -- the only exception being the odd seasonal hurricane that comes up and the atlantic and strikes a northern state.
In any event, this seems like an issue that should be dealt with on the local municipal level, and certainly not on a Federal one. There are no hurricanes in my area, and I have no desire to subsidize the south when it wouldn't have any advantage to me and would just mean a lot of additional tax burden, and I would take a very dim view of any legislation that tried to force this. If people who choose to live in hurricane-prone places essentially unsuited to human habitation have problems with their weather, obviously their governments should address these issues. But it's not a universal problem, and it does no good to make it one artificially.
I hope you get the point I'm trying to make. California is responsible for a lot more than its share of America's industry, technology, agriculture, and GDP. Just like a major disaster striking a major port is going to cause damage to the entire nation, so would any change in the way the agriculture and industry operates in California. I don't think the stock market would fair too well if California became unproductive due to drought. This problem is also not limited to California (see Nevada), and could end up causing problems elsewhere as well. California doesn't ask for federal help all that often, and usually ends up getting turned down or completely fucked over (see the energy crisis and rolling blackouts in 2001-2002) by the rest of the country. Their tax burden is among the highest, and every year California is subsidizing the states that are hit by hurricanes, helping rebuild the rest of the country, and chugging along. Eventually this is going to become a disaster. We know that. We knew it would happen in New Orleans, but nobody wanted to move and nobody wanted to improve the levees. Now the rest of the country is footing the bill, bitching and moaning about nobody doing anything sooner. This mandatory water conservation is somebody seeing a huge future disaster, KNOWING it's coming, and offering a solution that will help avoid it. Now everyone is whining because it doesn't affect them [yet] and blaming California?
That being said I had these waterless urinals at my job for a couple of years and I really liked them. They didn't smell at all, and I didn't even feel the need to wash my hands afterwards since I didn't have to touch the door handle, the urinal, or anything other than my zipper and boxer shorts. A couple of times they did get backed up for some reason and when you peed into them the blue oily stuff would come up out of the hole. But it never overflowed, and it just drained back down after a minute or less. But these were heavily used urinals, with hundreds of people using three of them, and I only saw that happen a few times. I'm sure it saved thousands of gallons of water, and I wouldn't mind using them again.
I think you'll find Michelob's Amber Bock to be a decent-good beer. It was the only American beer I could drink upon my return from Germany.
I'm not a newcomer. I'm saying the internet wasn't popular and mainstream until around 1999-2000, and online dating DEFINITELY wasn't socially respectable yet, so anyone who was online at that time meeting potential partners instead of trying to find porn was a nerd.
I'm not saying your wife is a complete nerd. I'm saying your wife must have a little bit of nerd in her because she was doing things like that online before it became the best place to buy a Coach purse.
Please excuse the long sentences and bad grammar, I just woke up.
No offense, but you smell like a PHB to me. Rules and formality mean shit when it comes down to how good a product is or how efficiently it's produced. Now if it's a rule like "don't stick your hand in the lion's cage" I understand, but if it's along the lines of "Click OK after typing in your name and password - don't hit tab-enter!", well, that just gets in the way of accomplishing tasks. A good work environment should allow the lowest employee to say "Hi John" to their boss instead of "Good morning, Mr. Anderson. I hope you're doing well, sir, it's a pleasure to work for you (please don't fire me)."
Teamwork is very important, though. That being said, some jobs are better handled by one person with another reviewing the finished work for errors.
My interpretation of your demand for "formal structured diplomatic approach" is that you want them to be more respectful, take the words of management as gospel, and be friendly to everyone. The first two are simply designed to make you feel better about yourself, and really don't add to productivity. These are skills they've learned sucking up to various teachers and professors throughout their educations. Social skills are important in many environments, but sometimes it's better to teach social skills to someone highly skilled than to teach skills to someone highly sociable.
I guess what I'm saying is I'd rather hire the introverted geek and slowly get him out of his shell than deal with a note-taking socially-adept college kid who spent five years drinking on daddy's dime. I hope your hiring approach works well for your company or department.