I don't find your interest reprehensible. I find it reprehensible that this happened in a company setting.
I'm sorry but if you can talk about the game on the weekend or this funny youtube vid you saw you should be able to talk about sex. Just because a large population cringe up whenever they hear the word and like to pretend its a dirty disgusting thing they would never do doesn't make it more or less a legitimate thing to talk about. Obviously if someone doesn't want to talk about something you shouldn't force it on them but you also shouldn't let someone take a topic off the table because they don't like it. People need thicker skins than running to HR whenever they overhear something they don't like.
Personal anecdote, a couple women in an office I worked in were well into books, fair enough, but the books they enjoyed were basically biographies of kids that had been abused and basically been through some of the most horrible shit you can imagine. Still a legit thing to write about, no arguments there, but they would openly talk about the graphic content of these books to each other, not forcing anyone else in or anything but other people could definitely hear them. No one really liked overhearing it but no one would dream of telling them not to talk about whatever they wanted. The only real rule was no swearing infront of clients and they never did.
Unless you are going to white list some topics for the workplace and everything else is no go then you can't really tell people to talk to each other according to your sensibilities.
Even if you are disgusted by it and only put up with it to keep your job and get promoted then good, well done, you've become an adult and might find getting on in this world a bit easier.
Furthermore, should women be treated sensitively and protected from things men think they might not like or should they actually be treated equally and expected to deal with it?
I re-ripped all mine into lossless a long time ago.
Whats the size difference on that though? To go lossless I'd have to re-rip my whole collection. because like you say, there's no point converting a lossy to a lossless.
Because they weren't better enough to prompt a mass switch over. MP3 was basically free at the point of use anyway, was widely supported and most stuff was already in it with good enough quality most people can't tell the difference between a decent mp3 and a cd. Why switch?
Things were already removed or added in order to achieve that sound.
That's not really what it means though is it? You could take that and say every sound is lossy because your ears don't pick up anything close to the full spectrum.
Yeah, unless there's a good free batch converter that can do my entire collection at once then just no (if there is please tell me). MP3 will probably be supported on pretty every device for the foreseeable. There's literally no reason not to.
You seem to the one with reading compression problems. No it doesn't explicitly say that but it strongly associates the two things and to you unless they specifically use those exact words you can discount it so why bother. The pre vote run up for leave was basically the NHS and immigrants. When did i bitch about borrowing? I have issues with how the Tories use it but borrowing is key to the fundamental economy. It can't exist in it's current state without it, but that's besides the point really.
I would rather they cut corporate welfare. I would rather they didn't spend boat loads subsidising supposedly private companies. I would rather they didn't spend billions on trident. I would rather a lot of things really.
As you bring up the Army though did you catch Fallon straight up lying on TV the other day when denying they had broken their manifesto pledge of not cutting the armed forces to less than 82,000 and it now being 79,000? (http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/the-tory-defence-minister-michael.html) Wouldn't suprise me if you did as basically no one picked it up.
Forget squaring the books, it can't be done. Literally can't be. You want policies that put money into public hands, so it can be spent, and taxed and then put back out and so on and the economy grows as the money circulates. Instead they take money out, so spending drops, tax revenue drops and the economy shrinks or stagnates. Inflation keeps going but pay gets frozen (not mp's pay though naturally), sound familiar? They heap money onto private companies to they can fudge numbers and say look it's getting better when it's really not.
Why is it seem you think Armed Forces, Education and NHS should be cut to ribbons just to square the books?
Good points. Back to the topic it's difficult to point to a conflict as say this was purely about religion, because you're right, it is rare. But religion does have something to do, to varying, degrees with creating a lot of conflicts. Even it's just the thing separating (or unifying depending on your point of view) two groups of people who then fight over resources. You are also right though that a lot of other conflicts have zero or very little to do with religion, most combatants in ww2 will have been christian for example but no one was trying to convert anyone and no sane person would say it was a religious conflict even though in the background you had the very much religion based genocide going on.
Personally I think religion has had a hand in it more that not religion but no one has the numbers to say either way.
On the whole it probably is more that we a just a violent species and will find one excuse or another to make war on each other. Religion is maybe just the go to excuse when you don't have anything better or maybe it is a true motivator, unless we can get a couple thousand years of no religion and compare how bloody the eras are how can we really tell?
Quote someone representing the leave campaign? fuck off, they were all saying it, did you see the goddam bus they were driving around in? The problem wasn't who was or wasn't saying it, the problem was they never made it as an official thing, could never have made it an official thing and would never have as it was basically impossible. It was dropped as a topic they day the result came in. I get that the line at best was a dig at the money we put into the EU, who would/could honestly believe that they would take all the money going to the eu and put it all into one thing, only an idiot that's who, but at the very least it gave the impression more would be put in.
You do realise this government has borrowed more than every previous labour gov combined. (http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/). So instead of borrow and spend, we now really have borrow and give. That corporate welfare isn't going to pay for itself. It's not even about borrowing. All the money that exists in our economy is borrowed. There is more debt than money exists. It's what you do with it that matters, labour put it back into the system, the tories are taking it out.
You're not voting tory? Good, I'm not going to try and convince you to vote for anyone else. I don't really care who as long as it's not tory.
As for the list. Yeah every government will have something similar, but for most you can at least argue a point why they've done it or identify its principle. Not many have such as long list of indefensible policies. You're wise not to take the challenge.
So what you want is examples of 1000+ year running wars based purely on the grounds of religion where conversion can get you off the hook? If you really just want examples of warmongering over 1000 years ago based on religion alone? Read the fucking bible.
When it comes to management, there are generally two schools of thought:
1) Employees are fundamentally lazy and require constant supervision for maximum productivity
2) Employees are fundamentally motivated to do their job, and if you empower them to make more decisions without needing to consult you, then they do their job more efficiently and provide better customer satisfaction.
Both of these theories are valid, and both are used, though which one is used depends on the particular job and the particular employees that you hire.
The problem is basically every office consists of a mix of those people. I am mostly in the first category yet my office is generally managed on the second principle and there are those people here. I guess it works to a degree because I'm motivated enough not to get hassled and I do all work assigned to me and don't miss deadlines but on the other hand I could do my work a lot better and quicker if I could be bothered or should I say motivated properly.
When asked to provide the password. Change the password first and give them this new password.
When you get the device back, change the password.
Of course it makes sense to change the passwords once you get your device back, but why change it before handing over?
I guess so you don't have to give up your oh so memorable and clever password you use for everything? Or you want to make it 'fuckyoufed' as some kind of protest that's going to get you fucked even more?
This means I can continue it live and work in the EU - and so not be forced back into the UK to live under this Government of whom I so profoundly disapprove.
It wasn't that long ago that the Irish were to social bogeyman and having an Irish accent or even ginger hair was enough to get you fucked. Same with the Russians. Now it's the Muslim's turn. Before too long there will be a new bogeyman and the Muslims will probably be right alongside everyone else jumping on whoever the poor group happens to be this time.
Mankind has been warmongering over differences in belief systems for thousands of years
Can you give us an example? And I really mean “differences in belief systems”. As in “We will raise an army to beat up those people because they believe the wrong things”. The closest thing I am aware of is the crusades, but even there the motive seemed more related to security than theological differences.
Did the holocaust pass you by? No, the war wasn't just about that specific issue but it was a part of it. Don't look too hard now. Most don't openly state that but it's a reason none the less. Here's one active now for you, only one of many though. ISIS stopped by to stay hi too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Slashdot Mirror
I don't find your interest reprehensible. I find it reprehensible that this happened in a company setting.
I'm sorry but if you can talk about the game on the weekend or this funny youtube vid you saw you should be able to talk about sex. Just because a large population cringe up whenever they hear the word and like to pretend its a dirty disgusting thing they would never do doesn't make it more or less a legitimate thing to talk about. Obviously if someone doesn't want to talk about something you shouldn't force it on them but you also shouldn't let someone take a topic off the table because they don't like it. People need thicker skins than running to HR whenever they overhear something they don't like.
Personal anecdote, a couple women in an office I worked in were well into books, fair enough, but the books they enjoyed were basically biographies of kids that had been abused and basically been through some of the most horrible shit you can imagine. Still a legit thing to write about, no arguments there, but they would openly talk about the graphic content of these books to each other, not forcing anyone else in or anything but other people could definitely hear them. No one really liked overhearing it but no one would dream of telling them not to talk about whatever they wanted. The only real rule was no swearing infront of clients and they never did.
Unless you are going to white list some topics for the workplace and everything else is no go then you can't really tell people to talk to each other according to your sensibilities.
Even if you are disgusted by it and only put up with it to keep your job and get promoted then good, well done, you've become an adult and might find getting on in this world a bit easier.
Furthermore, should women be treated sensitively and protected from things men think they might not like or should they actually be treated equally and expected to deal with it?
Too true, either women should be treated the same or different. They need to pick one.
Ha, your sig could very well be an extension of that comment.
I re-ripped all mine into lossless a long time ago.
Whats the size difference on that though? To go lossless I'd have to re-rip my whole collection. because like you say, there's no point converting a lossy to a lossless.
Most mp3 are drm free. Especially if you ripped them yourself.
Because they weren't better enough to prompt a mass switch over. MP3 was basically free at the point of use anyway, was widely supported and most stuff was already in it with good enough quality most people can't tell the difference between a decent mp3 and a cd. Why switch?
Dude, EVERY PIECE OF MUSIC IS LOSSY.
Why? One word - equalization.
Things were already removed or added in order to achieve that sound.
That's not really what it means though is it? You could take that and say every sound is lossy because your ears don't pick up anything close to the full spectrum.
So are we just setting up for a new format war?
Yeah, unless there's a good free batch converter that can do my entire collection at once then just no (if there is please tell me). MP3 will probably be supported on pretty every device for the foreseeable. There's literally no reason not to.
My phone is not booting - it's sitting there a 1/4 through the install, nice !
Wait, are you saying it isn't just working?
Yeah, it goes Alien, Aliens, bunch of other crap.
Could the title be interpreted as a threat to the hackers? I wonder if it was recently changed.
No, I think it's just a generic pirate line to go with a generic pirate film. Disney haven't shown any actual imagination in a long while.
The reason is there stupid XD
You seem to the one with reading compression problems. No it doesn't explicitly say that but it strongly associates the two things and to you unless they specifically use those exact words you can discount it so why bother. The pre vote run up for leave was basically the NHS and immigrants. When did i bitch about borrowing? I have issues with how the Tories use it but borrowing is key to the fundamental economy. It can't exist in it's current state without it, but that's besides the point really.
Well done, you noticed. That was there on purpose. Pacifically to make the point. (That one too before you lose your shit)
Here's Gove and Johnson standing infront of a completely different line to give the NHS millions more a week.
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/e...
You can deny it some more though if you'd like.
Video of Farage giving the line.
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
What did the bus say then?
https://www.google.co.uk/searc...
I would rather they cut corporate welfare. I would rather they didn't spend boat loads subsidising supposedly private companies. I would rather they didn't spend billions on trident. I would rather a lot of things really.
As you bring up the Army though did you catch Fallon straight up lying on TV the other day when denying they had broken their manifesto pledge of not cutting the armed forces to less than 82,000 and it now being 79,000? (http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/the-tory-defence-minister-michael.html) Wouldn't suprise me if you did as basically no one picked it up.
Forget squaring the books, it can't be done. Literally can't be. You want policies that put money into public hands, so it can be spent, and taxed and then put back out and so on and the economy grows as the money circulates. Instead they take money out, so spending drops, tax revenue drops and the economy shrinks or stagnates. Inflation keeps going but pay gets frozen (not mp's pay though naturally), sound familiar? They heap money onto private companies to they can fudge numbers and say look it's getting better when it's really not.
Why is it seem you think Armed Forces, Education and NHS should be cut to ribbons just to square the books?
Good points. Back to the topic it's difficult to point to a conflict as say this was purely about religion, because you're right, it is rare. But religion does have something to do, to varying, degrees with creating a lot of conflicts. Even it's just the thing separating (or unifying depending on your point of view) two groups of people who then fight over resources. You are also right though that a lot of other conflicts have zero or very little to do with religion, most combatants in ww2 will have been christian for example but no one was trying to convert anyone and no sane person would say it was a religious conflict even though in the background you had the very much religion based genocide going on.
Personally I think religion has had a hand in it more that not religion but no one has the numbers to say either way.
On the whole it probably is more that we a just a violent species and will find one excuse or another to make war on each other. Religion is maybe just the go to excuse when you don't have anything better or maybe it is a true motivator, unless we can get a couple thousand years of no religion and compare how bloody the eras are how can we really tell?
Quote someone representing the leave campaign? fuck off, they were all saying it, did you see the goddam bus they were driving around in? The problem wasn't who was or wasn't saying it, the problem was they never made it as an official thing, could never have made it an official thing and would never have as it was basically impossible. It was dropped as a topic they day the result came in. I get that the line at best was a dig at the money we put into the EU, who would/could honestly believe that they would take all the money going to the eu and put it all into one thing, only an idiot that's who, but at the very least it gave the impression more would be put in.
You do realise this government has borrowed more than every previous labour gov combined. (http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/). So instead of borrow and spend, we now really have borrow and give. That corporate welfare isn't going to pay for itself. It's not even about borrowing. All the money that exists in our economy is borrowed. There is more debt than money exists. It's what you do with it that matters, labour put it back into the system, the tories are taking it out.
You're not voting tory? Good, I'm not going to try and convince you to vote for anyone else. I don't really care who as long as it's not tory.
As for the list. Yeah every government will have something similar, but for most you can at least argue a point why they've done it or identify its principle. Not many have such as long list of indefensible policies. You're wise not to take the challenge.
So what you want is examples of 1000+ year running wars based purely on the grounds of religion where conversion can get you off the hook? If you really just want examples of warmongering over 1000 years ago based on religion alone? Read the fucking bible.
When it comes to management, there are generally two schools of thought:
1) Employees are fundamentally lazy and require constant supervision for maximum productivity 2) Employees are fundamentally motivated to do their job, and if you empower them to make more decisions without needing to consult you, then they do their job more efficiently and provide better customer satisfaction.
Both of these theories are valid, and both are used, though which one is used depends on the particular job and the particular employees that you hire.
The problem is basically every office consists of a mix of those people. I am mostly in the first category yet my office is generally managed on the second principle and there are those people here. I guess it works to a degree because I'm motivated enough not to get hassled and I do all work assigned to me and don't miss deadlines but on the other hand I could do my work a lot better and quicker if I could be bothered or should I say motivated properly.
When asked to provide the password. Change the password first and give them this new password. When you get the device back, change the password.
Of course it makes sense to change the passwords once you get your device back, but why change it before handing over?
I guess so you don't have to give up your oh so memorable and clever password you use for everything? Or you want to make it 'fuckyoufed' as some kind of protest that's going to get you fucked even more?
Thank God I had an Irish grandfather.
This allows me an Irish passport.
This means I can continue it live and work in the EU - and so not be forced back into the UK to live under this Government of whom I so profoundly disapprove.
It wasn't that long ago that the Irish were to social bogeyman and having an Irish accent or even ginger hair was enough to get you fucked. Same with the Russians. Now it's the Muslim's turn. Before too long there will be a new bogeyman and the Muslims will probably be right alongside everyone else jumping on whoever the poor group happens to be this time.
As if he chose his own name?
And even if he did, how is it his fault when he could do nothing to prevent a terrorist from using HIS name?
Why should I change? He's the one who sucks!
Mankind has been warmongering over differences in belief systems for thousands of years
Can you give us an example? And I really mean “differences in belief systems”. As in “We will raise an army to beat up those people because they believe the wrong things”. The closest thing I am aware of is the crusades, but even there the motive seemed more related to security than theological differences.
Did the holocaust pass you by? No, the war wasn't just about that specific issue but it was a part of it. Don't look too hard now. Most don't openly state that but it's a reason none the less. Here's one active now for you, only one of many though. ISIS stopped by to stay hi too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...