There are more kinds of investments than just money. If the guy's story is right, they had maxed out their own tech experience, and he ended up making a lot of high level infrastructure/planning decisions. So yes he invested in the company - he invested his talent and expereience, and possibly saved their bacon. It sounds like either he didn't have a good contract to start out with, or should have renegociated when he started assuming more responsibility.
Industrial sabotage often is terrorism to those working at the locations involved
When. Your rabbid environmentalist isn't going to engage in industrial sabotage during work hours, where a bunch of beefy rednecks with crowbars can give chase. He's going to do it at 3am on a Sunday morning when nobody's working.
Secondly, your final statement could be subject to libel. Retract it.
But you can be a perfectly well behaved, responsible, mature young adult and still end up on your administrator's/teacher's shit list if he or she is a power tripping control freak. Anyone who's gone through high school and not seen this happen is either blind or the faculty is a bunch of pot smoking, peace loving hippies.
Idiot. The same "illegal search and seizure" is practiced in many workplaces. You sign a form when you start that says they can search your locker, desk, tool box, whatever anytime they feel like it and may do so randomly just to check up on you. Why do employers do this? For the same reasons that high schools do it - people bring drugs to school and work.
Idiot. Public schools are government institutions, private employeers are not, and don't have to follow the same rules that the government does (i.e. the Bill of Rights).
An awful lot of environmentalists are against the use of coal for power, so I'd assume just about any militant environmentalist would qualify.
To that I would then ask: so what's the coal industy's definition of "militant environmentalist"? These industires are fond of calling zealots "ecoterrorists" when the damage they cause is clearly industrial sabotage, and doesn't have anything to do with causing terror. They might think "militant environmentalist" is anyone who's ever donated money to Greenpeace and paid money to see 'An Inconvienient Truth'.
Oh, you mean you don't believe there are militant environmentalists?
So Mike, how long as it been since you've stopped beating your wife?
Well, some more details would be nice so we know this person isn't just being hit by the broad brush of guilt-by-association. For example, this group the applicant was a part of might have been a large one, with some zealous members who decided industrial sabotage was more appealing than political lobbying or legal challenges. The applicant might have been a moderate member of the group opposed to such actions. This is of course all conjecture, but that's part of the problem of making business decision based on hersay found online.
If you can prove that's why they didn't give you the job, you'll win. Of course, it's that whole 'proving it' part that is difficult.
Exactly. And even if you do get the job, if management doesn't like you, you'll find there are a lot of ways to get fired. And that's assuming you don't live in a Right to be Fired state, where they wont need any reason at all.
Sure, everyone breaks laws, but do you really want to hire someone stupid enough to advertise that (and provide photographic evidence) on the web?
I don't know, are you stupid enough to think those are the only people that would apply to? Somebody could Google your name and find a pic of you with marker on your face that was taken and posted without your permission on someone else's Myspace page. Or they might find pictures on your site that you took of your high, smashed friends at a party where you were the designated driver. Even though you were clean and sober, you get passed up via guilt by association.
There's a good rule here for people on both sides of this issue: just because you can doesn't mean you should. Just because you can post pictures of you and your friends streaking through campus doesn't mean that you should. And just because employers can use Google to dig through employee's personal lives, doesn't mean that they should.
So you like short games, bully for you. What you and the othe 50 people here that have the same opinion that you do, don't get is that you are paying NEW game prices for an expansion pack. HL2 retailed for $50. An expansion pack should be around $30, but here you are, money in hand, waiting to pay twice as much for the same stuff, just because it's split into chunks.
Try Civilization IV if you're into that sort of game. I've gotten far more than 40 hours of fun out of that one...well after they patched the hell out of it;-)
Does it not suck now? The game felt like everything was a horrible rush, and yet I managed to be bored out of my mind throughout.
Or, you could save the $60 (3 episodes at $20 each) and buy a new game (rather than an expansion pack at new game prices) for less money. Your "deal" doesn't look so much like a deal after all.
What you are arguing is the fallacy of the slippery slope.
Not so much. If you've ever taken a basic course in economics you should know that "episodic content" will cost you more than buying the game all at once. For starters you can multiply whatever manufacturing and distribution costs there are by the number of "episodes" released, and all those costs are going to be passed on to the consumer. Secondly, you will pay a lot more per hour of gameplay for the same reasons you pay a lot more for buying 24 cans of Pepsi from a vending machine than you will buying 24 cans in a case from a store.
Furthermore, there are advantages to the developers beyond just the more regular revenue. The commentary in episode 1 talks a lot about this. With episodic content you can incorporate improvements in graphics hardware technology at the time scales that they become available rather than guessing about stuff that's 3 years away when you start development and hoping you guess right.
Or they could stop wasting time and resources on figuring out how to split up an expansion pack, and just release the damn thing. And you'll be paying new game prices (or more) for an expansion pack, which is typically released at a fraction of the price of the original game.
Wow, with a "screw you" attitude like that, I wonder who would want to help you? Whatever happened to helping people in need, no matter who they were? Oh yeah. It's all "me first" these days. Sad...
No. If guys like him are going to be assholes to people that fail to anticipate the future with perfection, then they can screw off when shit happens to them, too. Hoist on their own petards, as they say. Or "reap what you sow" if you prefer.
For example, I do have sympathy for people who need to take perscription painkillers for a genuine medical need, but end up becoming addicted in the process. Unless said adict happens to be a sack of shit like Rush Limbagh, who has stated that all drug addicts belong in jail. What's good for the goose is good for the gander: his ass should have been thrown in jail for the maximum sentance allowed.
I believe he was referring to the Newton, which was indeed a total flop.
Hardly. You don't find people religiously using "total flops" 10 years after they were built. The Newton was spun off into a wholy owned (and profitable) subsidiary of Apple. It just got Steved when Jobs came back, supposedly because the Newton was Scully's baby, and Scully was the one that forced Steve out of Apple after an attempted coup.
Apple got Windows working on Intel hardware, Big Whoppee, Windows on Intel, like fifty billion other people haven't already?
No, they haven't, since this isn't like throwing Windows on a Dell or Thinkpad. Apple's Intel based machines use EFI, not a BIOS, and Windows XP does not support EFI, thus making it a non-trivial task.
Poor choices in life are no excuse for being a failure. I mean beyond the possibility of illness the thing mentioned in the parent comment are all things you would have control over at one point.
Hardly.
If you some how thought it was resonable to purchase a little condo for $1.5 million
Of course it is, because like any card carrying elitist libertarian asshole, you busted your ass to get into Harvard's business school and graduated at the top of your class. Now all your hard work has gotten you a VP position at a corporation, you make 300k a year, have all your school loans paid off and enough money saved up for several years worth of bills. Real estate is insanely expensive in your area, but you don't want to live in a hovel with roomates, so you buy a nice little condo for $1.5 million, which is perfectly reasonable given your salary and the size of your savings.
If you can't figure out how to make a marriage work, or are a poor judge of people then once again I don't feel any sympathy. There are families in the united states that survive on just over minimum wage with little governmental assistance. If you ever pulled down $300k a year and find yourself in hard times, you pretty much fucked up and probably should be allowed to handle your personal finances anymore.
Obviously you are a card carrying elitist libertarian asshole who has never had a run of bad luck. When you do have that run of bad luck, and need a hand to get back on your feet, I hope the only people you find are also card carrying elitist libertarian assholes that slap you in the face instead.
Generally, you're wrong. The left wants to hear what they already believe, no matter how fantastic. The right wants to hear what they already believe, no matter how fantanstic. Moderates want to hear both sides, often so that they can use the confusion as an excuse not to make a decision.
No he's not, you are. And it's funny, because you are spewing the same "balance" nonsense that the link was lampooning. Even going back to the days of Nixon and Goldwater (who would both be loony liberals in today's GOP), conservative complaints about "liberal bias in the media" were based on their idea that conservative positions weren't given equal time. Whereas liberal complaints are based around the fact that the media not only does not challenge GOP politicians, but are willing deciminators of their propoganda.
There is significant evidence for global warming, but less showing that it is caused by people.
Nope, sorry Rupert. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that yes, global warming is happening, and yes, it is being caused by humans. And it has been this way for quite some time now.
It seems to me that scientists are politically pressured to support global warming, just like evolution
You forget which party dominates all three branches of government? How many trillion dollar industries with enourmous lobbying power are supporting global warming?
If you don't want to be living one mortgage payment from being out on the street, DON'T! Learn to live within your means. Put 25% of your money into your retirement account. blah blah blah
You can do all that and more and still be up a creek if you have a run of bad luck. Hell, you could be a VP earning 300k a year and enough money saved up for six years worth of bills and be royally screwed by the loss of your job and any of these events:
Catastrophic illness/accident. Yes, you have great insurance, but it doesn't cover everything and your bills are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The housing market finally takes a big dump. Your little condo in San Diego that you bought for $1.5 million a couple years ago is now worth half that much, and you still can't find any buyers.
The nice girl you met in college and married has now turned into a greedy, psychopathic bitch after 8 years of marriage. She divorces you, takes the house, half your assets, primary custody of your two kids and the court awards her hefty child support payments.
The last can be a real bitch, because states get matching funds from the federal government for the child support they collect, so they have a strong incentive to collect as much as possible. It is difficult to have payments reduced in the event of a job loss and in any case might be set based on what you "should" be making. Some of the more draconian states will even seize your car, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you have to drive to get to your job.
Slashdot Mirror
There are more kinds of investments than just money. If the guy's story is right, they had maxed out their own tech experience, and he ended up making a lot of high level infrastructure/planning decisions. So yes he invested in the company - he invested his talent and expereience, and possibly saved their bacon. It sounds like either he didn't have a good contract to start out with, or should have renegociated when he started assuming more responsibility.
Industrial sabotage often is terrorism to those working at the locations involved
When. Your rabbid environmentalist isn't going to engage in industrial sabotage during work hours, where a bunch of beefy rednecks with crowbars can give chase. He's going to do it at 3am on a Sunday morning when nobody's working.
Secondly, your final statement could be subject to libel. Retract it.
O---- the point
O---- your head
O---- my balls you can suck on, you dumb bastard
But you can be a perfectly well behaved, responsible, mature young adult and still end up on your administrator's/teacher's shit list if he or she is a power tripping control freak. Anyone who's gone through high school and not seen this happen is either blind or the faculty is a bunch of pot smoking, peace loving hippies.
I didn't know comparing apples to oranges was so insightful these days.
Idiot. The same "illegal search and seizure" is practiced in many workplaces. You sign a form when you start that says they can search your locker, desk, tool box, whatever anytime they feel like it and may do so randomly just to check up on you. Why do employers do this? For the same reasons that high schools do it - people bring drugs to school and work.
Idiot. Public schools are government institutions, private employeers are not, and don't have to follow the same rules that the government does (i.e. the Bill of Rights).
An awful lot of environmentalists are against the use of coal for power, so I'd assume just about any militant environmentalist would qualify.
To that I would then ask: so what's the coal industy's definition of "militant environmentalist"? These industires are fond of calling zealots "ecoterrorists" when the damage they cause is clearly industrial sabotage, and doesn't have anything to do with causing terror. They might think "militant environmentalist" is anyone who's ever donated money to Greenpeace and paid money to see 'An Inconvienient Truth'.
Oh, you mean you don't believe there are militant environmentalists?
So Mike, how long as it been since you've stopped beating your wife?
Well, some more details would be nice so we know this person isn't just being hit by the broad brush of guilt-by-association. For example, this group the applicant was a part of might have been a large one, with some zealous members who decided industrial sabotage was more appealing than political lobbying or legal challenges. The applicant might have been a moderate member of the group opposed to such actions. This is of course all conjecture, but that's part of the problem of making business decision based on hersay found online.
If you can prove that's why they didn't give you the job, you'll win. Of course, it's that whole 'proving it' part that is difficult.
Exactly. And even if you do get the job, if management doesn't like you, you'll find there are a lot of ways to get fired. And that's assuming you don't live in a Right to be Fired state, where they wont need any reason at all.
Sure, everyone breaks laws, but do you really want to hire someone stupid enough to advertise that (and provide photographic evidence) on the web?
I don't know, are you stupid enough to think those are the only people that would apply to? Somebody could Google your name and find a pic of you with marker on your face that was taken and posted without your permission on someone else's Myspace page. Or they might find pictures on your site that you took of your high, smashed friends at a party where you were the designated driver. Even though you were clean and sober, you get passed up via guilt by association.
There's a good rule here for people on both sides of this issue: just because you can doesn't mean you should. Just because you can post pictures of you and your friends streaking through campus doesn't mean that you should. And just because employers can use Google to dig through employee's personal lives, doesn't mean that they should.
I'm curious: what is the coal industries definition of "malicious environmentalist group"?
Someone being able to turn the content on proves otherwise.
Not when you have to run a third party program, with no affiliation to Rockstar, it doesn't.
This line is a hoot. Time and time again Apple fan(atics) claim that the reason Apple isn't in x,y,z market is because they're simply too good for it.
Oh? What fanatics, and what markets are you talking about, specifically?
Ah. I was hoping the patches had tweaked the gameplay, not just fixed bugs. Had any luck with mods?
So you like short games, bully for you. What you and the othe 50 people here that have the same opinion that you do, don't get is that you are paying NEW game prices for an expansion pack. HL2 retailed for $50. An expansion pack should be around $30, but here you are, money in hand, waiting to pay twice as much for the same stuff, just because it's split into chunks.
Try Civilization IV if you're into that sort of game. I've gotten far more than 40 hours of fun out of that one...well after they patched the hell out of it ;-)
Does it not suck now? The game felt like everything was a horrible rush, and yet I managed to be bored out of my mind throughout.
Or, you could save the $60 (3 episodes at $20 each) and buy a new game (rather than an expansion pack at new game prices) for less money. Your "deal" doesn't look so much like a deal after all.
What you are arguing is the fallacy of the slippery slope.
Not so much. If you've ever taken a basic course in economics you should know that "episodic content" will cost you more than buying the game all at once. For starters you can multiply whatever manufacturing and distribution costs there are by the number of "episodes" released, and all those costs are going to be passed on to the consumer. Secondly, you will pay a lot more per hour of gameplay for the same reasons you pay a lot more for buying 24 cans of Pepsi from a vending machine than you will buying 24 cans in a case from a store.
Furthermore, there are advantages to the developers beyond just the more regular revenue. The commentary in episode 1 talks a lot about this. With episodic content you can incorporate improvements in graphics hardware technology at the time scales that they become available rather than guessing about stuff that's 3 years away when you start development and hoping you guess right.
Or they could stop wasting time and resources on figuring out how to split up an expansion pack, and just release the damn thing. And you'll be paying new game prices (or more) for an expansion pack, which is typically released at a fraction of the price of the original game.
Wow, with a "screw you" attitude like that, I wonder who would want to help you? Whatever happened to helping people in need, no matter who they were? Oh yeah. It's all "me first" these days. Sad...
No. If guys like him are going to be assholes to people that fail to anticipate the future with perfection, then they can screw off when shit happens to them, too. Hoist on their own petards, as they say. Or "reap what you sow" if you prefer.
For example, I do have sympathy for people who need to take perscription painkillers for a genuine medical need, but end up becoming addicted in the process. Unless said adict happens to be a sack of shit like Rush Limbagh, who has stated that all drug addicts belong in jail. What's good for the goose is good for the gander: his ass should have been thrown in jail for the maximum sentance allowed.
I believe he was referring to the Newton, which was indeed a total flop.
Hardly. You don't find people religiously using "total flops" 10 years after they were built. The Newton was spun off into a wholy owned (and profitable) subsidiary of Apple. It just got Steved when Jobs came back, supposedly because the Newton was Scully's baby, and Scully was the one that forced Steve out of Apple after an attempted coup.
Apple got Windows working on Intel hardware, Big Whoppee, Windows on Intel, like fifty billion other people haven't already?
No, they haven't, since this isn't like throwing Windows on a Dell or Thinkpad. Apple's Intel based machines use EFI, not a BIOS, and Windows XP does not support EFI, thus making it a non-trivial task.
Poor choices in life are no excuse for being a failure. I mean beyond the possibility of illness the thing mentioned in the parent comment are all things you would have control over at one point.
Hardly.
If you some how thought it was resonable to purchase a little condo for $1.5 million
Of course it is, because like any card carrying elitist libertarian asshole, you busted your ass to get into Harvard's business school and graduated at the top of your class. Now all your hard work has gotten you a VP position at a corporation, you make 300k a year, have all your school loans paid off and enough money saved up for several years worth of bills. Real estate is insanely expensive in your area, but you don't want to live in a hovel with roomates, so you buy a nice little condo for $1.5 million, which is perfectly reasonable given your salary and the size of your savings.
If you can't figure out how to make a marriage work, or are a poor judge of people then once again I don't feel any sympathy. There are families in the united states that survive on just over minimum wage with little governmental assistance. If you ever pulled down $300k a year and find yourself in hard times, you pretty much fucked up and probably should be allowed to handle your personal finances anymore.
Obviously you are a card carrying elitist libertarian asshole who has never had a run of bad luck. When you do have that run of bad luck, and need a hand to get back on your feet, I hope the only people you find are also card carrying elitist libertarian assholes that slap you in the face instead.
Generally, you're wrong. The left wants to hear what they already believe, no matter how fantastic. The right wants to hear what they already believe, no matter how fantanstic. Moderates want to hear both sides, often so that they can use the confusion as an excuse not to make a decision.
No he's not, you are. And it's funny, because you are spewing the same "balance" nonsense that the link was lampooning. Even going back to the days of Nixon and Goldwater (who would both be loony liberals in today's GOP), conservative complaints about "liberal bias in the media" were based on their idea that conservative positions weren't given equal time. Whereas liberal complaints are based around the fact that the media not only does not challenge GOP politicians, but are willing deciminators of their propoganda.
There is significant evidence for global warming, but less showing that it is caused by people.
Nope, sorry Rupert. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that yes, global warming is happening, and yes, it is being caused by humans. And it has been this way for quite some time now.
It seems to me that scientists are politically pressured to support global warming, just like evolution
You forget which party dominates all three branches of government? How many trillion dollar industries with enourmous lobbying power are supporting global warming?
You can do all that and more and still be up a creek if you have a run of bad luck. Hell, you could be a VP earning 300k a year and enough money saved up for six years worth of bills and be royally screwed by the loss of your job and any of these events:
The last can be a real bitch, because states get matching funds from the federal government for the child support they collect, so they have a strong incentive to collect as much as possible. It is difficult to have payments reduced in the event of a job loss and in any case might be set based on what you "should" be making. Some of the more draconian states will even seize your car, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you have to drive to get to your job.
No shit, considering that the Dems today are more conservative than the GOP was thirty years ago.