And why not? If my company doesn't respect my opinions, what am I doing earning that company money? Civil discourse is healthy. It is OK for a company to tell it's employees "y'know, this would help/hurt us if it got passed and here's why." It's also OK for the employees to disagree. There may be occasional instances of individual employers becoming too controlling, but so far this isn't the norm. I would never recommend against somebody politely bringing up a disagreement to "company politics." It really should never be expected that it will bite you in the ass- that fear is only going to silence discussion.
Anytime a major ISP has tried something fishy they have been slapped down hard by customers.
Sort of like when Apple tied the iPhone to the ATT network. Oh man the shit storm that erupted from customer sent them packing...
Sort of like when Charter started imposing bandwidth caps on customers who had their advertised "unlimited" internet access. Yup, turned that one right around.
Sort of like when *any* cellular network charged for both incoming and outgoing SMS packets. Good thing that uproar ended that practice.
Sort of like when ISPs started redirecting failed DNS website queries to their own ad-laden search pages. God I never thought that would stop!
What you describe is how it *should* work, and believe me we would all love if it did. Unfortunately that's not how the real world always works. Fact of the matter is there just isn't enough competition in ISPs for customers to really vote with their wallets. If customers can't vote with their wallets, companies don't have consequences for their actions. ATT does something you don't like... are you going to go to another DSL provider? That still uses ATT pipes? Internet backbones are still a natural monopoly in their respective regions and I don't expect some new technology will come around to change that. As much as we hate giving the government more power here, I would rather see some decisions made by a group who is at least remotely answerable to me versus a company that is only answerable to its shareholders.
I don't really want to argue against you because I see your point. I do appreciate though that marriage bundles all of that up in one familiar institution versus setting up whatever varied legal documents to serve the same purpose as "these two people are one entity." A family member of mine had an opposite experience when her significant other had a health scare and she was damn near powerless. They had a wedding ceremony but for several reasons decided not to make the marriage official through the state. They married officially after that. I suppose if they had the right legal documents set up they could have avoided a lot of the headache, but that does require quite a bit more up front effort and cost to navigate the legalities of it.
Couples breaking up will still be clusterfucks, regardless of what contracts they have between them. Fact is if somebody really wants to make your life difficult through the legal system, they can, married or not.
And your post is a troll. And it is overrated (Insightful shouldn't mean "I agree with you"). But those weren't my mods, because I have the time to explain why you are being modded down. Perhaps there should be a +1 Ignorant mod so that we could learn from your post...
The implications could not be clearer; While supporters of traditional marriage use legal and ethical means to promote their agenda, supporters of gay marriage use illegal and unethical means the moment it appears that doing it the legal way isn't winning support. It was all over California during the prop 8 battle, and now it's going to start in WA. I guarantee.
While the above statement is true, it is also retardedly misleading to support your agenda (read: Troll). Try something more like:
"While *most* supporters of traditional *or gay* marriage use legal and ethical means to promote their agenda, *some* supporters of either side use illegal and unethical means the moment it appears that doing it the legal way isn't winning support."
People on both sides of this argument do messed up things. This doesn't make one side right, it just makes a lot of individuals wrong. You would be *extremely* hard pressed to argue that gays haven't been on the receiving end of most of the hardship in this debate. Now, from your post later on in discussion...
So, because some OTHER people, in the past, have wrongly beaten up and attacked (or, worse, killed) some Gays, then it is OK, to do the same to OTHER completely innocent people who had nothing to do with, nor condone the violence perpetrated against some gays?
I agree with you here-- Actions of individuals should reflect on actions of the group. For example, a few folks running a name and shame campaign shouldn't necessarily reflect on the entire gay rights movement.
And lastly the sunshine on my opinions: proposition 8 (along with all anti-gay-marriage efforts) is a blatant attempt for one group of people to deny another group of people rights which they themselves enjoy for *religious* or *personal moral* reasons. I would debate against them for days but in the end concede that it is their right to keep their religious and personal moral opinions on whatever topic. However, I can not and will not concede that it is their right to deny somebody else's rights for religious reasons. I can't condone a name and shame campaign, but the individuals (and particularly politicians and organizations) involved in the anti-gay marriage campaigns have lost sight of the American ideal of liberty and should be ashamed. A gay couple getting married does nothing to impinge upon your rights or the sanctity of your own marriage. Get over it.
I think you're missing a point here... The majority of Marriage benefits have nothing to do with religion. The idea is you have two people who trust each other enough to make potentially very important decisions for each other. Of particular importance are medical decisions. A boyfriend/girlfriend can't make decisions on medical procedures, funeral, etc while a spouse can. Fact is for many legal functions, a married couple is treated as a single entity, with either party able to make decisions for both. This is quite important when it comes to managing a family (dealing with school records, doctors, etcetc). These are the most important benefits that homosexual couples are being denied, and definitely not benefits I would wish to do away with for heterosexual couples. I don't see how it is discriminatory to allow one person to confer that degree of trust on somebody they love. If you're incapacitated, it does no good to keep some of these decisions to your own comatose self.
That said, I believe you are more specifically talking about the tax benefits. A married couple will generally pay less in taxes than both individuals would combined, but (barring zany tax code backflips) it's still more than either individual would pay alone (I have no numbers on any of this- just generalized assumptions). I suppose that's still a bit discriminatory against singles, but I can't help but feel you're grasping at straws here... I don't hear too many singles complain loudly about the tax benefits but then again I also can't think of any outstanding arguments to support it.
Marriage should be a *government* concept, not a religious one. Rename it a civil union and remove the term "marriage" from the law books if you need to, but some of contractual rights and obligations are mandatory.
There is no study here, from TFA (which itself is barely longer than TFS), sixteen people were asked to state which song clip they thought sounded better. I'm surprised the results were better than 50/50. From TFA, all listeners could *tell* a difference and the report was on which one they *prefer*
Well... Before you give up, did you *try* heading in to see a film? At least then you could explain your distaste for the policy... Any drop in viewership due to this would be lost in the noise, but a few complaints from customers might actually be heeded (yes!! Some companies do listen to us sometimes!).
Except that unless the day trader was involved in the initial public offering, his purchase of company stock really has no impact or actual investment in the company. That's the main thing I don't understand or appreciate about the stock market-- once the company sells stock, all subsequent sales and trades are between the old owner of the shares and the new owner-- the company is not significantly impacted.
This all sounds super deep and meaningful and all quantumy, but does anybody s'pose that it fails so much because it's just a big damn machine built by hundreds of contractors, many of which will be impressed if it works at all?
Parent (grandparent? Hell, the post by Commodore64) has a point that is lost in this crowd. When LPs were relevant there were only a handful of places to hear new music. You could go to concerts, listen to the radio (or jukeboxes, etc), or buy records. So yes, when you wanted to find good new music, you'd listen to the radio. For many good reasons the current generation doesn't trust the music industry and will look to elsewhere for music, but this wasn't always the case.
No, he's not joking, and I can't fathom why the post has been modded troll. Times change and understanding the past is important as well as keeping up with the changes.
While different companies may look differently on resumes, gambling related jobs aren't really respected any more or less than any other profession. IGT is based in my town, and nobody cares as much about the name of the company as the experience there -- actually the software guys I know at IGT are well enough respected among their peers. Experience in IT is still experience in IT. Embedded programming is the same for a slot machine as it is for a kiosk or microwave oven (though with *much* more process and regulation).
You may run into biased recruiters who object to you working at a gaming company, but there are biases against damn near every industry out there (webmaster selling alcohol, system engineer building cigarette rolling machines, etcetc). All in all, it's better to get *some* experience in a potentially objectionable industry than none at all. If you're working with gaming machines you'll come out with good embedded systems knowledge. For a gaming website (or pretty much any IT related gaming job) you'll get a pretty decent security background (or so I imagine). Most important for any of these however is you'll get experience dealing with a regulated industry which will have its own processes and assorted red tape. This can be great if you move to other regulated industries down the road (banking, defense).
Nobody can say for certain that *any* job won't effect you later on. There are pitfalls in any industry, shady companies and fly by night operations are everywhere. Be smart and do some research into the company that is hiring you regardless of what they build. If it's not something you object to, you are probably OK. Most folks don't consider gambling something especially terrible.
I think you're missing a point here-- parent isn't trying to say that people should *let* themselves be manipulated. He isn't even saying that people should watch or listen to ads, he's simply saying it is the advertisers right to try to sell their products. Yes, a lot of advertising is carried out via questionable means, but just as the advertisers are within their right to spout off their nonsense, you as a viewer are in your right to laugh at their feeble attempts for it.
I don't think anybody here is saying they like crappy TV commercials. *Some* advertising is immoral, *some* is useful, and the pita is finding that happy balance in between where folks can find useful things they didn't know before without being inundated with crap. Proper advertising still occurs. "Here's our product, here's what it does, here's where you can buy it, have a good day." What you describe is snake oil bullshit, and honestly it's only a problem if the buyer is uninformed or insecure enough to fall for it. "A fool and his money" etc etc...
Radioisotope thermoelectric generators-- basically converts heat from radioactive decay into electricity through a thermocouple. Small, but not exactly man portable (at least the soviet models for lighthouses). Anyhow, I'm excited for my own personal force field producing belt!
Maybe if I RTFA'd or did more than skim TFS, I'd know if they were talking about wee bitty RTGs or something else. Either way, sweet! I'll keep my eyes peeled for these at the Home Depot.
Now please explain why this doesn't make your argument a mockery.
Mebbe because *you* are installing drivers for a jurisdiction that may or may not comply with the spectrum regulations where *you* live. You are going out of your way to do so. You also lost credibility when you tried to blame Broadcom for your actions.
Irrelevant might be a bad term, but it's still not of any immediate concern. Robotics have a *long* way to go before the robot will be more dangerous than the person programming it. When it comes to nefarious acts, a robot is still just a tool-- and a much more difficult tool to use than a knife, gun, rope, hammer, heavy book, or any number of other things somebody might use to harm somebody else.
I'm not saying hacking personal robots is something to ignore entirely, but it's really nothing to lose sleep over. A hacked roomba is just one more dangerous thing in the world (which despite the best of fear mongering, is still not that dangerous), and not something that's ever been documented to date.
Slashdot Mirror
And why not? If my company doesn't respect my opinions, what am I doing earning that company money? Civil discourse is healthy. It is OK for a company to tell it's employees "y'know, this would help/hurt us if it got passed and here's why." It's also OK for the employees to disagree. There may be occasional instances of individual employers becoming too controlling, but so far this isn't the norm. I would never recommend against somebody politely bringing up a disagreement to "company politics." It really should never be expected that it will bite you in the ass- that fear is only going to silence discussion.
Anytime a major ISP has tried something fishy they have been slapped down hard by customers.
Sort of like when Apple tied the iPhone to the ATT network. Oh man the shit storm that erupted from customer sent them packing...
Sort of like when Charter started imposing bandwidth caps on customers who had their advertised "unlimited" internet access. Yup, turned that one right around.
Sort of like when *any* cellular network charged for both incoming and outgoing SMS packets. Good thing that uproar ended that practice.
Sort of like when ISPs started redirecting failed DNS website queries to their own ad-laden search pages. God I never thought that would stop!
What you describe is how it *should* work, and believe me we would all love if it did. Unfortunately that's not how the real world always works. Fact of the matter is there just isn't enough competition in ISPs for customers to really vote with their wallets. If customers can't vote with their wallets, companies don't have consequences for their actions. ATT does something you don't like... are you going to go to another DSL provider? That still uses ATT pipes? Internet backbones are still a natural monopoly in their respective regions and I don't expect some new technology will come around to change that. As much as we hate giving the government more power here, I would rather see some decisions made by a group who is at least remotely answerable to me versus a company that is only answerable to its shareholders.
I don't really want to argue against you because I see your point. I do appreciate though that marriage bundles all of that up in one familiar institution versus setting up whatever varied legal documents to serve the same purpose as "these two people are one entity." A family member of mine had an opposite experience when her significant other had a health scare and she was damn near powerless. They had a wedding ceremony but for several reasons decided not to make the marriage official through the state. They married officially after that. I suppose if they had the right legal documents set up they could have avoided a lot of the headache, but that does require quite a bit more up front effort and cost to navigate the legalities of it.
Couples breaking up will still be clusterfucks, regardless of what contracts they have between them. Fact is if somebody really wants to make your life difficult through the legal system, they can, married or not.
The implications could not be clearer; While supporters of traditional marriage use legal and ethical means to promote their agenda, supporters of gay marriage use illegal and unethical means the moment it appears that doing it the legal way isn't winning support. It was all over California during the prop 8 battle, and now it's going to start in WA. I guarantee.
While the above statement is true, it is also retardedly misleading to support your agenda (read: Troll). Try something more like:
"While *most* supporters of traditional *or gay* marriage use legal and ethical means to promote their agenda, *some* supporters of either side use illegal and unethical means the moment it appears that doing it the legal way isn't winning support."
People on both sides of this argument do messed up things. This doesn't make one side right, it just makes a lot of individuals wrong. You would be *extremely* hard pressed to argue that gays haven't been on the receiving end of most of the hardship in this debate. Now, from your post later on in discussion...
So, because some OTHER people, in the past, have wrongly beaten up and attacked (or, worse, killed) some Gays, then it is OK, to do the same to OTHER completely innocent people who had nothing to do with, nor condone the violence perpetrated against some gays?
I agree with you here-- Actions of individuals should reflect on actions of the group. For example, a few folks running a name and shame campaign shouldn't necessarily reflect on the entire gay rights movement.
And lastly the sunshine on my opinions: proposition 8 (along with all anti-gay-marriage efforts) is a blatant attempt for one group of people to deny another group of people rights which they themselves enjoy for *religious* or *personal moral* reasons. I would debate against them for days but in the end concede that it is their right to keep their religious and personal moral opinions on whatever topic. However, I can not and will not concede that it is their right to deny somebody else's rights for religious reasons. I can't condone a name and shame campaign, but the individuals (and particularly politicians and organizations) involved in the anti-gay marriage campaigns have lost sight of the American ideal of liberty and should be ashamed. A gay couple getting married does nothing to impinge upon your rights or the sanctity of your own marriage. Get over it.
I think you're missing a point here... The majority of Marriage benefits have nothing to do with religion. The idea is you have two people who trust each other enough to make potentially very important decisions for each other. Of particular importance are medical decisions. A boyfriend/girlfriend can't make decisions on medical procedures, funeral, etc while a spouse can. Fact is for many legal functions, a married couple is treated as a single entity, with either party able to make decisions for both. This is quite important when it comes to managing a family (dealing with school records, doctors, etcetc). These are the most important benefits that homosexual couples are being denied, and definitely not benefits I would wish to do away with for heterosexual couples. I don't see how it is discriminatory to allow one person to confer that degree of trust on somebody they love. If you're incapacitated, it does no good to keep some of these decisions to your own comatose self.
That said, I believe you are more specifically talking about the tax benefits. A married couple will generally pay less in taxes than both individuals would combined, but (barring zany tax code backflips) it's still more than either individual would pay alone (I have no numbers on any of this- just generalized assumptions). I suppose that's still a bit discriminatory against singles, but I can't help but feel you're grasping at straws here... I don't hear too many singles complain loudly about the tax benefits but then again I also can't think of any outstanding arguments to support it.
Marriage should be a *government* concept, not a religious one. Rename it a civil union and remove the term "marriage" from the law books if you need to, but some of contractual rights and obligations are mandatory.
You blame the people, I blame the editors.
There is no study here, from TFA (which itself is barely longer than TFS), sixteen people were asked to state which song clip they thought sounded better. I'm surprised the results were better than 50/50. From TFA, all listeners could *tell* a difference and the report was on which one they *prefer*
Really, there's nothing to see here.
Well... Before you give up, did you *try* heading in to see a film? At least then you could explain your distaste for the policy... Any drop in viewership due to this would be lost in the noise, but a few complaints from customers might actually be heeded (yes!! Some companies do listen to us sometimes!).
Crap... that means I'm going to need to tape a EULA to my dog to indemnify me if during an attempted dry humping she bites their face off...
GOD contract law is a pain in the ass.
It would quickly become apparent that the stock price was not accurately priced and buyers would come in.
I wish I could trust that statement ;)
I'm likely quite ignorant on this subject-- but *how* can a day trader (or even group of them) kill a company?
Except that unless the day trader was involved in the initial public offering, his purchase of company stock really has no impact or actual investment in the company. That's the main thing I don't understand or appreciate about the stock market-- once the company sells stock, all subsequent sales and trades are between the old owner of the shares and the new owner-- the company is not significantly impacted.
Touche... "Business as usual" makes for terrible TV (and slashdot articles).
This all sounds super deep and meaningful and all quantumy, but does anybody s'pose that it fails so much because it's just a big damn machine built by hundreds of contractors, many of which will be impressed if it works at all?
Parent (grandparent? Hell, the post by Commodore64) has a point that is lost in this crowd. When LPs were relevant there were only a handful of places to hear new music. You could go to concerts, listen to the radio (or jukeboxes, etc), or buy records. So yes, when you wanted to find good new music, you'd listen to the radio. For many good reasons the current generation doesn't trust the music industry and will look to elsewhere for music, but this wasn't always the case.
No, he's not joking, and I can't fathom why the post has been modded troll. Times change and understanding the past is important as well as keeping up with the changes.
Well played... but at least real estate is cheap in those towns!
Vegas may be the suicide capitol of the US, but it isn't the worst place you could end up living.
Maybe not the worst, but it's pretty damn close...
While different companies may look differently on resumes, gambling related jobs aren't really respected any more or less than any other profession. IGT is based in my town, and nobody cares as much about the name of the company as the experience there -- actually the software guys I know at IGT are well enough respected among their peers. Experience in IT is still experience in IT. Embedded programming is the same for a slot machine as it is for a kiosk or microwave oven (though with *much* more process and regulation).
You may run into biased recruiters who object to you working at a gaming company, but there are biases against damn near every industry out there (webmaster selling alcohol, system engineer building cigarette rolling machines, etcetc). All in all, it's better to get *some* experience in a potentially objectionable industry than none at all. If you're working with gaming machines you'll come out with good embedded systems knowledge. For a gaming website (or pretty much any IT related gaming job) you'll get a pretty decent security background (or so I imagine). Most important for any of these however is you'll get experience dealing with a regulated industry which will have its own processes and assorted red tape. This can be great if you move to other regulated industries down the road (banking, defense).
Nobody can say for certain that *any* job won't effect you later on. There are pitfalls in any industry, shady companies and fly by night operations are everywhere. Be smart and do some research into the company that is hiring you regardless of what they build. If it's not something you object to, you are probably OK. Most folks don't consider gambling something especially terrible.
I think you're missing a point here-- parent isn't trying to say that people should *let* themselves be manipulated. He isn't even saying that people should watch or listen to ads, he's simply saying it is the advertisers right to try to sell their products. Yes, a lot of advertising is carried out via questionable means, but just as the advertisers are within their right to spout off their nonsense, you as a viewer are in your right to laugh at their feeble attempts for it.
I don't think anybody here is saying they like crappy TV commercials. *Some* advertising is immoral, *some* is useful, and the pita is finding that happy balance in between where folks can find useful things they didn't know before without being inundated with crap. Proper advertising still occurs. "Here's our product, here's what it does, here's where you can buy it, have a good day." What you describe is snake oil bullshit, and honestly it's only a problem if the buyer is uninformed or insecure enough to fall for it. "A fool and his money" etc etc...
...Because they do it more?
You didn't answer your question. Clearly the road to hell is paved with Nobel Peace Prizes!
Radioisotope thermoelectric generators-- basically converts heat from radioactive decay into electricity through a thermocouple. Small, but not exactly man portable (at least the soviet models for lighthouses). Anyhow, I'm excited for my own personal force field producing belt!
Maybe if I RTFA'd or did more than skim TFS, I'd know if they were talking about wee bitty RTGs or something else. Either way, sweet! I'll keep my eyes peeled for these at the Home Depot.
Now please explain why this doesn't make your argument a mockery.
Mebbe because *you* are installing drivers for a jurisdiction that may or may not comply with the spectrum regulations where *you* live. You are going out of your way to do so. You also lost credibility when you tried to blame Broadcom for your actions.
Can you get the MAC address of a machine behind a NAT firewall?
Irrelevant might be a bad term, but it's still not of any immediate concern. Robotics have a *long* way to go before the robot will be more dangerous than the person programming it. When it comes to nefarious acts, a robot is still just a tool-- and a much more difficult tool to use than a knife, gun, rope, hammer, heavy book, or any number of other things somebody might use to harm somebody else.
I'm not saying hacking personal robots is something to ignore entirely, but it's really nothing to lose sleep over. A hacked roomba is just one more dangerous thing in the world (which despite the best of fear mongering, is still not that dangerous), and not something that's ever been documented to date.
Instead of chair package contained anti-bobcat... Would not buy again.