The guy who followed the instructions to lay the bricks didn't design the cathedral.
Nor did Fraser-Mckenzie "discover" the missing mass.
But for some reason this undergrad has got most of the popular credit when the usual process is to give the underlings who did some grunt work no credit at all.
He's just clinging embarrassingly to others' visions of the future.
Hey, MS, you made it big with a smart desktop. Don't follow Google and return us to an era of dumb terminals for hire, please.
And not every one of us is taken in by Apple's overpriced shine. Work out why you have 90%+ desktop marketshare instead of turning your back on it to chase the remaining 10%.
What you meant to type was, "I'm so arrogant that anyone who disagrees with me must have misunderstood me."
Just taken a quick browse through your posting history, skippy, and your bile is so formulaic you're practically a caricature of what you represent. A cheek swab would allow me to determine whether it's Charles or David you personally assist for.
Indeed, some did. But a proper voting system is more important than punishing that cunt Clegg. If the option for PR had been there then everyone should have taken it regardless - and make use of it to vote for a new breed of minor Parties instead of the now destroyed LD (precisely what Clegg would not have wanted).
If you believe that no candidates are worth voting for, less stupid would be to spoil your ballot paper, writing on it what you actually want.
Ten million people writing the same thing will be noticed - not least by fellow citizens as they realise they are not alone - even if it doesn't affect the immediate outcome in law. Sometimes you have to act directly. See also a lot of the Arab world and now Spain.
Rather than whining about the representative, I'm suggesting that it is every citizen's responsibility to tackle everyone who voted for him (or to justify to their fellow citizens their vote for him).
I assumed Sarkozy asked the Americans nicely to pull an Assange on DSK.
"Suicide" has gone out of fashion since David Kelly, and, well, we know Mitterrand's feelings on relations with kids, so straight adult sexual assault is the choice for getting rid of your opposition these days.
It doesn't help that the UK government is now going to pretend that we want FPTP, following a recent FPTP vs AV referendum. (AV is also a joke, nonsensically giving more weight to the secondary choices of the voters of the less popular parties - but AV would never have won out as no-one wanted it anyway.)
Your dream of a serious start-up with the potential for serious returns, on trivial capital, is just that, a dream. You've never done it.
Well, well, someone's projecting, aren't they?:-)
What, to you, is "trivial capital"? Is it like the $18k that Y Combinator initially invests on average? That may be a significant amount to someone in his late teens, but if you wait a decade until you have gained experience and knowledge then you should certainly have the money management skills to have a lot more than that in savings (if you're cut out to be a businessman). For those who really have too much testosterone to wait and save, they'll be reassured to learn that bootstrapping money from friends/family averaged around $20-25k (before the implosion), "and further, 58% of the fastest-growing companies in the U.S. started with $20,000 or less.”
When, in a former capitalist life many years ago, I started up a business, the initial amount my partner and I put in from savings was comparable.
That's either very recent or not universal. But it certainly illustrates why an LLC is a daft idea: it's just a way for the owner(s) by default to fuck over his creditors.
Hm. In a past life I worked for a year in an office, saved up about $8k and used that toward starting up (rest from partner). In the scheme of things, it was one of the least risky things I have ever done. Work wasn't dangerous, and the worst that would have happened is that I ended up losing my investment and having to go back to being employed. The greatest impact was the stress of working two jobs during the initial months, i.e. part time work at the old place for $ topup, but honestly, it's not exactly the most challenging thing in the world for a healthy young man to sit in front of a computer for 12-14 hours a day for a few months.
*Risks* in work mean dedicating years to something, or doing things which are dangerous (to your health, to your freedom, whatever). My partner's father took a risk getting well paid for some fairly dangerous factory labour many years ago and now he's bedbound and wasting away. An old school-colleague took a risk when he decided to teach in Palestine; a friend of a friend took a risk when he worked at an animal testing lab so he could report on poor procedure (read "unnecessary cruelty"). A few thousand dollars over a few months... really, capitalists have it easy.
1. Save up and gain experience in your field, so you are actually qualified to start up a business; 2. Invest some of your money in starting up a business; 3. All further company debts are not your own; 4. Profit!
Your risk is minor: you invest some amount of your savings. The rest of the risk is taken up by your creditors, i.e. the businesses around you who provide services to your business and who will take the hit if you use your company's limited liability protection to jump ship rather than pay back what you owe. Yet, oddly enough, these same businesses don't enjoy a special reward protected in law when you are successful.
Capitalise profit; socialise losses. It doesn't just hit the proles.
I rely on the fact that I mean what I actually say whereas almost every reply is angrily beating down a straw man. Often posting on/. is like criticising Israel: instead of a post defending Israel, you get a hundred people saying, "You hate Jews!"
Face it: most successful businesses rely on having more than enough money to start up combined with the protection of never losing more than you put in. Even then, an LLC/Ltd. company allows you reward nowhere near in proportion to your risk.
Wow, one of three nearly identical strawman. Let's see what I said:
It's been a good couple of hundred years since people setting up a company have had to take on the risk of debt.
See that? Everyone can take on personal debt to set up a business, but it's optional: if you have sufficient experience to have built up savings or a sufficiently good plan to persuade outside investors, i.e. if you're the typical likely-to-succeed business, then you are safe afterwards.
A typical successful business is of the "have money/reward" variety, not the "throws all his money into some cunning idea which works out" ("risk/reward") variety.
You've clearly never set up a company. It's been a good couple of hundred years since people setting up a company have had to take on the risk of debt. What do you think that limited in limited company is, except to give a special dispensation to business owners?
Setting up business is not a risk/reward thing, it's a have money/reward thing.
No, skill is the number one way to get employment. Level/advancement is part of getting employment - unless you're being obtuse and counting anything whatever which pays (and no-one at McDonalds reads your LinkedIn profile).
If you do cool things in your field, you will gain a reputation which will put you in demand. If are not already heard of, you can show what you have done. Publish first, publish/perish, etc. Your CV will list your qualifications and provide pointers to any portfolio.
The number 2 way is networking, which has some value in terms of trusting personal recommendations but is mainly just humans demonstrating the usual primate social behaviour and favouring their group for its own sake.
And number 3 is poor substitutes for networking such as LinkedIn. So, it's like I said in my initial post - which will be angrily modded down because everyone with a LinkedIn profile is embarrassed to be a number 3.
LinkedIn is becoming one of the first places people check when they are thinking of hiring you.
Maybe the people you work with. Anyone who uses such masturbatory nonsense to judge you (or the person you claim to be, or the person someone else claims to be you) is going to be a terrible employer. It's even worse than people who use your Facebook profiles to judge you, because at least there's the small chance that the Facebook profile wasn't simply engineered to get you a better job than you're cut out for.
LinkedIn is popular today because everyone's desperately seeking employment, perhaps preemptively. Desperation often results in irrational behaviour. The problem is that there's not enough work to go around because we're organised/sufficiently advanced such that we can get along just fine working fewer hours. We should be spreading the work around more evenly, not clamouring like whores for more pointless things to do. Go against a whole society's worth of divide-and-conquer indoctrination and consider a little less competition and a little more cooperation.
It may not be tactically appropriate to flout a law - you're not going to get anywhere good by walking around in Riyadh in a bikini - but a campaigner for gender equality who is arrested for walking around in Riyadh in a bikini is no less a political prisoner than one who is arrested merely for talking against gender inequality.
Your position appears to be that the only way to campaign is to speak. From your impotent, lazy view, campaigning by actually doing what you believe you should be able to do is not legitimate. Why is this? Do you have some sort of perverse respect for arbitrary power per se? Your snivelling kowtowing to authority ("accepted the consequences" indeed!) is something you need to sort out.
Depending on what you stand for, you may well argue that committing a crime as part of activism is morally justified. However, when you get thrown in jail for that, you still are not a political prisoner, you're an activist who committed a crime and accepted the consequences.
I see. So a man who announces himself to be an unashamed homosexual, campaigns for an end to discrimination based on sexual orientation then receives the death penalty for having anal sex with his boyfriend is "not a political prisoner [but] an activist who committed a crime and accepted(!) the consequences".
Slashdot Mirror
The guy who followed the instructions to lay the bricks didn't design the cathedral.
Nor did Fraser-Mckenzie "discover" the missing mass.
But for some reason this undergrad has got most of the popular credit when the usual process is to give the underlings who did some grunt work no credit at all.
Why is that?
"If we urinate on the Koran, it makes us more right," said US Marshal Albert Nájera of the Eastern District of California in a statement.
He's just clinging embarrassingly to others' visions of the future.
Hey, MS, you made it big with a smart desktop. Don't follow Google and return us to an era of dumb terminals for hire, please.
And not every one of us is taken in by Apple's overpriced shine. Work out why you have 90%+ desktop marketshare instead of turning your back on it to chase the remaining 10%.
Thanks.
What you meant to type was, "I'm so arrogant that anyone who disagrees with me must have misunderstood me."
Just taken a quick browse through your posting history, skippy, and your bile is so formulaic you're practically a caricature of what you represent. A cheek swab would allow me to determine whether it's Charles or David you personally assist for.
If you got out of your bauble of privilege then you'd find we live in the same universe. Although it may mean turning you back on your poli-ticking...
Indeed, some did. But a proper voting system is more important than punishing that cunt Clegg. If the option for PR had been there then everyone should have taken it regardless - and make use of it to vote for a new breed of minor Parties instead of the now destroyed LD (precisely what Clegg would not have wanted).
"Rationality" is a euphemism for "agree with me".
And "responsibility" is a euphemism for "help the rich".
If you believe that no candidates are worth voting for, less stupid would be to spoil your ballot paper, writing on it what you actually want.
Ten million people writing the same thing will be noticed - not least by fellow citizens as they realise they are not alone - even if it doesn't affect the immediate outcome in law. Sometimes you have to act directly. See also a lot of the Arab world and now Spain.
Rather than whining about the representative, I'm suggesting that it is every citizen's responsibility to tackle everyone who voted for him (or to justify to their fellow citizens their vote for him).
How this is "lazy" I cannot imagine.
I assumed Sarkozy asked the Americans nicely to pull an Assange on DSK.
"Suicide" has gone out of fashion since David Kelly, and, well, we know Mitterrand's feelings on relations with kids, so straight adult sexual assault is the choice for getting rid of your opposition these days.
FPTP is awful, yes.
It doesn't help that the UK government is now going to pretend that we want FPTP, following a recent FPTP vs AV referendum. (AV is also a joke, nonsensically giving more weight to the secondary choices of the voters of the less popular parties - but AV would never have won out as no-one wanted it anyway.)
Don't hate the representative - hate the voter.
Modern representative democracy is the biggest exercise in responsibility denial.
Did your colleague vote Sarkozy? Explain to him what he's responsible for. Let him learn what he has done, and he may change.
Your dream of a serious start-up with the potential for serious returns, on trivial capital, is just that, a dream. You've never done it.
Well, well, someone's projecting, aren't they? :-)
What, to you, is "trivial capital"? Is it like the $18k that Y Combinator initially invests on average? That may be a significant amount to someone in his late teens, but if you wait a decade until you have gained experience and knowledge then you should certainly have the money management skills to have a lot more than that in savings (if you're cut out to be a businessman). For those who really have too much testosterone to wait and save, they'll be reassured to learn that bootstrapping money from friends/family averaged around $20-25k (before the implosion), "and further, 58% of the fastest-growing companies in the U.S. started with $20,000 or less.”
When, in a former capitalist life many years ago, I started up a business, the initial amount my partner and I put in from savings was comparable.
Have a nice day.
That's either very recent or not universal. But it certainly illustrates why an LLC is a daft idea: it's just a way for the owner(s) by default to fuck over his creditors.
(1) Starting a business is generally nowhere near as urgent nor as expensive as having a roof over your head;
(2) And it would generally be a lot better to wait until you have experience (and savings).
While you're here, think what the housing market would be like if everyone waited a bit.
Hm. In a past life I worked for a year in an office, saved up about $8k and used that toward starting up (rest from partner). In the scheme of things, it was one of the least risky things I have ever done. Work wasn't dangerous, and the worst that would have happened is that I ended up losing my investment and having to go back to being employed. The greatest impact was the stress of working two jobs during the initial months, i.e. part time work at the old place for $ topup, but honestly, it's not exactly the most challenging thing in the world for a healthy young man to sit in front of a computer for 12-14 hours a day for a few months.
*Risks* in work mean dedicating years to something, or doing things which are dangerous (to your health, to your freedom, whatever). My partner's father took a risk getting well paid for some fairly dangerous factory labour many years ago and now he's bedbound and wasting away. An old school-colleague took a risk when he decided to teach in Palestine; a friend of a friend took a risk when he worked at an animal testing lab so he could report on poor procedure (read "unnecessary cruelty"). A few thousand dollars over a few months... really, capitalists have it easy.
Or investor. But anyway:
1. Save up and gain experience in your field, so you are actually qualified to start up a business;
2. Invest some of your money in starting up a business;
3. All further company debts are not your own;
4. Profit!
Your risk is minor: you invest some amount of your savings. The rest of the risk is taken up by your creditors, i.e. the businesses around you who provide services to your business and who will take the hit if you use your company's limited liability protection to jump ship rather than pay back what you owe. Yet, oddly enough, these same businesses don't enjoy a special reward protected in law when you are successful.
Capitalise profit; socialise losses. It doesn't just hit the proles.
I rely on the fact that I mean what I actually say whereas almost every reply is angrily beating down a straw man. Often posting on /. is like criticising Israel: instead of a post defending Israel, you get a hundred people saying, "You hate Jews!"
Face it: most successful businesses rely on having more than enough money to start up combined with the protection of never losing more than you put in. Even then, an LLC/Ltd. company allows you reward nowhere near in proportion to your risk.
Wow, one of three nearly identical strawman. Let's see what I said:
It's been a good couple of hundred years since people setting up a company have had to take on the risk of debt.
See that? Everyone can take on personal debt to set up a business, but it's optional: if you have sufficient experience to have built up savings or a sufficiently good plan to persuade outside investors, i.e. if you're the typical likely-to-succeed business, then you are safe afterwards.
A typical successful business is of the "have money/reward" variety, not the "throws all his money into some cunning idea which works out" ("risk/reward") variety.
You've clearly never set up a company. It's been a good couple of hundred years since people setting up a company have had to take on the risk of debt. What do you think that limited in limited company is, except to give a special dispensation to business owners?
Setting up business is not a risk/reward thing, it's a have money/reward thing.
No, skill is the number one way to get employment. Level/advancement is part of getting employment - unless you're being obtuse and counting anything whatever which pays (and no-one at McDonalds reads your LinkedIn profile).
If you do cool things in your field, you will gain a reputation which will put you in demand. If are not already heard of, you can show what you have done. Publish first, publish/perish, etc. Your CV will list your qualifications and provide pointers to any portfolio.
The number 2 way is networking, which has some value in terms of trusting personal recommendations but is mainly just humans demonstrating the usual primate social behaviour and favouring their group for its own sake.
And number 3 is poor substitutes for networking such as LinkedIn. So, it's like I said in my initial post - which will be angrily modded down because everyone with a LinkedIn profile is embarrassed to be a number 3.
LinkedIn is becoming one of the first places people check when they are thinking of hiring you.
Maybe the people you work with. Anyone who uses such masturbatory nonsense to judge you (or the person you claim to be, or the person someone else claims to be you) is going to be a terrible employer. It's even worse than people who use your Facebook profiles to judge you, because at least there's the small chance that the Facebook profile wasn't simply engineered to get you a better job than you're cut out for.
LinkedIn is popular today because everyone's desperately seeking employment, perhaps preemptively. Desperation often results in irrational behaviour. The problem is that there's not enough work to go around because we're organised/sufficiently advanced such that we can get along just fine working fewer hours. We should be spreading the work around more evenly, not clamouring like whores for more pointless things to do. Go against a whole society's worth of divide-and-conquer indoctrination and consider a little less competition and a little more cooperation.
If you want to work for someone and do a good job, you demonstrate skill.
If your skill is insufficient, you network and gain favours from "friends".
If you fail at socialising, you post your profile on LinkedIn.
If you're still not happy with yourself, you use LinkedIn to compare cock size and actually check other people's profiles.
It may not be tactically appropriate to flout a law - you're not going to get anywhere good by walking around in Riyadh in a bikini - but a campaigner for gender equality who is arrested for walking around in Riyadh in a bikini is no less a political prisoner than one who is arrested merely for talking against gender inequality.
Your position appears to be that the only way to campaign is to speak. From your impotent, lazy view, campaigning by actually doing what you believe you should be able to do is not legitimate. Why is this? Do you have some sort of perverse respect for arbitrary power per se? Your snivelling kowtowing to authority ("accepted the consequences" indeed!) is something you need to sort out.
The person who most passionately appears to criticise some ideology in his youth is most likely to follow it in his old age.
(Politicians doubly so.)
Depending on what you stand for, you may well argue that committing a crime as part of activism is morally justified. However, when you get thrown in jail for that, you still are not a political prisoner, you're an activist who committed a crime and accepted the consequences.
I see. So a man who announces himself to be an unashamed homosexual, campaigns for an end to discrimination based on sexual orientation then receives the death penalty for having anal sex with his boyfriend is "not a political prisoner [but] an activist who committed a crime and accepted(!) the consequences".
You're an idiot.