You'd think this mentality would apply to IT outsourcing firms. Afterall, their only product is IT consulting, so the geeks working for them are, in effect, raw material and finished product. However, most IT outsourcers will only pay for actual hours worked, and even then try to screw you on how many hours you get. Why this is, I don't get. But it's the main reason I left IT behind and am now agressively pursuing a career in commissioned sales. After all, when you make your money based on how much you sell of a given thing, you have no worries about inflation, since your pay will go up along with inflation (as your product goes up in value, and your percentage commission stays the same).
Can just anyone work in sales? Nope, it definitely takes a certain personality type. But for those of you who are outgoing, friendly, and can present yourselves in a professional manner, I highly recommend making the switch. Start with selling cars if you have to, if only to learn how to sell. Once you've mastered that, all kinds of doors will be open to you.
Who are you to say? I can't speak about the others, but this one is a total canard. Ovitz built and ran a hugely successful talent agency, which he was obliged to sever all ties to when he moved to Disney. So most of his $140 million in compensation was for giving up his ownership stake in Creative Artists Agency, not for anything he did (or didn't do) at Disney.
If this is true and if global temperatures are affected by CO2 emissions, then human activity is probably causing these storms to be (on the average) more severe.
Two 'ifs' in that sentance. Doesn't sound like something we should worry too much about.
Oh, and did anyone else see the report that the ice caps are melting...on Mars? Guess there must be something else going on other than CO2 in the atmosphere. I wonder what could effect the tempature on the Earth, and on Mars, at the same time??
It's interesting to note that "Earth" derives from Old English "eorthe" (pron. yorth), which is starting to sound an awful lot like "yoord", the literal pronounciation of "jord" if you don't mute the D.
Wow, almost like English and Norwegian come from the same language family or something!
Are you this skeptical of all scientific theories or just global warming?
First, you should always be skeptical. Second, global warming isn't a theory, it's public policy masquerading as a theory.
The carbon that we are currently releasing into the atmosphere was previoiusly safely stored underground.
And it still accounts for a miniscule amount of carbon, compared to that released by natural sources.
This is a pedestrian term, not scientific.
What an amazingly arrogant thing to say about the most common definition of "proof". Do you have any proof that that definition is "pedestrian", or is it just your opinion?
Science doesn't deal in "truth."
You expect me to trust someone's position on an important policital point when he "doesn't deal in truth"? Pray tell me, what does science deal in, then? Twisting the facts to suit your own goals?
If you have evidence to refute global warming or something that says that humans are not significantly impacting the environment, I'd like to see that.
For someone who seems to think himself a scientist, you appear to have no grasp of the concept of "proving a negative". I can't prove that humans aren't affecting the environment. But you should be able to prove they are, but you've failed to do so. Therefore, you haven't proven your theory, so the theory is either flawed or outright wrong.
Besides, as I said at the beginning, the burden of proof is on you, not me. You're the one advancing a theory. Let's see you prove it correct.
That's not my attitude towards science, it's my attitude towards global warming.
Who was "shouting?"
Ever heard of the words "metaphor" or "hyperbole"?
I have made no extraordinary claims.
You claim that humans alone are the cause of any perceived global warming. Since the temperature of the earth has fluctuated throughout history, claiming human responsibility for a naturally occurring event is extraordinary.
FYI, there is no such thing "proof" in science. Only evidence and theories.
Is English your second language or something? Because you don't seem to grasp the nuance of certain words and phrases.
From synonym.com: The noun proof has 6 senses (first 2 from tagged texts)
1. (10) proof, cogent evidence -- (any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something; "if you have any proof for what you say, now is the time to produce it")
Recognition of global warming is the modern equivalent of recognizing that the Earth does, in fact, revolve around the sun.
No, recognition of global warming is the modern equivalent of agreeing with the church...the church of science.
If you are not willing to look at the evidence outside your own little world, don't even bother commenting on the subject of global warming.
I am willing to look at that evidence, but you have to provide it and prove it has any merit. So far all the evidence I've seen is that things are slowly warming up. None of it says definitively what the cause is, and since the same doomsayers who predict global warming today were shouting about global cooling a few decades ago (remember we were supposed to be in an ice age by now?), I'm not going to waste my time until you can find some extraordinary proof to back up your extraordinary claims.
The fact that most of the people most in favor of "curtailing emissions" (which would slow down or even destroy our economy) are also a pack of socialists leads me to think they have an ulterior motive. But maybe that's just me being paranoid.
You have been hearing it from a few for a long time. Now you are hearing from a majority of respectable scientists.
By "respectable", you probably mean "those who agree with global warming." Also, science isn't something you put up to a vote. A majority of "respectable scientists" thought the sun revolved around the earth until Copernicus proved otherwise.
If you want evidence, look at your Glacier National Park. Check the temperature changes and mass changes of the glaciers. The evidence for climate change is there if you bother to look.
If it's so readily apparent, why can't I see it where I live? You want to prove global warming is happening, then provide the proof. Don't expect me to go looking for something I don't think is there. The burden of proof lies with you, my friend.
You kept prefacing your comments with "we this" and "we that". If that isn't speaking for someone, I don't know what is.
Muslims DID invade Jerusalem, and basically tried to take over. But on the other hand, they didn't attempt to hunt down every last Christian and destroy the entire population outright.
No, actually, they did attempt to exterminate the population. That's what prompted a continent-wide mobilization for war. Remember, the Crusades drew knights and men-at-arms from countries who either were at war each other, had been recently, or would be again in very short order. It would take something pretty big to get them all on the same team. Slaughtering of Christians would do it.
Second: Americans left Europe to get away from their problems. If there's any group of people who don't owe anyone anything for the problems Europe has caused, it's us.
Third: My 30-greats granddad didn't fight in the Crusades. He was too busy settling down in his new lands in England. One or more of his grandsons probably went, though.
Too many Americans have no idea what the crusades are.
No, I think most Americans just realize they have nothing to do with us.
And maybe, just maybe that's why 90% of the country is thinking, "Well gee, I wonder why these muslim guys are trying to kill us? What did we ever do to them?"
Yeah, and those Americans are right. We never did anything to those people, and they need to realize it and get the fuck over it already.
We? We meaning Christians. Okay, so that's a very broad term. I'm not a Christian
Then what's this "we" shit, white man? Don't presume to speak for the over 2 billion Christians in the world when you are not one yourself.
Oh, and here's a little tidbit you probably don't know (or just plain ignored): the Crusades were justified, in concept if not in execution. The Muslims had invaded the Kingdom of Jerusalem and slaughtered the Christian inhabitants, and were threatening trade across the Mediterranean. Now, it's a sad truth that many of the Crusaders ransacked many towns, many Christian towns at that. But that's a function of the horrific truths of war at the time, it has no bearing on whether the goal of liberating the countries in question from their Muslim invaders was justified.
And we, meaning, in general, us Christians [sic] spent quite a hefty load of time murdering muslims back in the day.
Your point would be what? That people were mean to each other, once upon a time? Show me two groups of people who interacted with each other and who didn't subsequently commit horrific acts upon each other. Every nation and race is guilty of it, and I refuse to feel bad because my distant ancestors were savage towards someone else's distant ancestors. I also don't carry any grudges against others for what may, or may not, have happened to thirty-greats Grandpa Philip.
And as far as I'm concerned, the only natives of north america are the people that were here 10 000 years ago.
You have to realize how idiotic it is to think that way, don't you? Stating that a person's ancestors have to have lived in a given location for 10,000 years before you can feel any kind of claim to the land, that's just absurd.
And look at it this way: my ancestors came from Ireland, England, and Germany, all within the last 150 years, some as recently as 70 years ago. By your way of thinking, I'm not a native. And yet, if someone told me to pack up and go home, where would that be? My last name is English, so Ireland is right out. And my most recent immigrant ancestors were German, aber keine Deutch spreche. I could go to England, but that would be spitting in the face of my English and Irish ancestors, none of whom wanted anything to do with that land.
So I'm a native of this land, if only because I have no place else to go.
Yeah, lots of exposure in the media. But did mobs vandalize their places of worship? Did members become victims of hate crimes? Or those that merely looked like sect members?
Yeah, I know, we Americans are so biggotted. The enlightened Europeans, especially the Dutch, would never torch mosques or lynch Arabs. Right?
Human beings are not defined by who they are, but rather who they are not. "The other" is an important concept to all human societies, and the fear of the other is a prime motivating factor for much of what we do. It would be nice for us to get past that basic instinct, just as we struggle to get past others, but this is something that only Americans have to struggle with.
It's going to be a long time before AI advances to the point where you could say "Computer, find me the clip of the Madonna song where she pretended to masturbate the first time", or "Computer, find me a copy of the unedited Zapruder tape, the one that shows the driver shooting Kennedy in the face*". Despite what CSI may have led you to believe, computers can't quite do that yet.
*Yes, it's true, in the unedited Zapruder tape, you can clearly see the driver turn around and pop a cap into his face, afterwards Kennedy's head snaps back and to the right. Don't believe me? Then put Yahoo to work, and and check this shit out!
I just tried this search, too. I was struck by a couple of things:
1) Man, that chick is skinny! Someone get her a cheeseburger. And I'm not one of those guys who's into so-called "BBW" type women, either. I just don't get into women who have asses like 12 yo boys. 2) She was, what, 18, when this clip was made? Just goes to show that sometimes enthusiasm is a poor substitute for experience.
Well, not yet you're not. But give it time. NAFTA was only phase one.
Oh, and for those who get upset with calling Americans "American", remember that only the United States of America uses "America" in the long form of the country name. Just like the citzens of the United Mexican States are typically called Mexicans, and the citizens of the (former) Dominion of Canada were called Canadians. You might live on the North American continent, but you are not an American.
Seriously, when someone talks about "death to America", do you honestly think they're talking about you?
This isn't science. Real scientists have said again and again that the whole missile defense system doesn't work and won't work for the forseeable future
Hmm, so all those rocket scientists and computer scientists, especially the ones with Ph.D.s, who are working on this project, they're not real scientists? Sounds like your definition of "real scientist" is "any scientist who agrees with my political leanings."
As for the system being trivial to defeat with new missile, well, duh, it's called the march of technology. The answer isn't to keep your head in the sand and say "this works for now", but to keep pushing ahead of the competition, forcing them to play catch-up with us. By the time someone has come up with a new missile that'll get past this system (once the system is working, that is), then we'll be ready to move on to its successor.
It's just like anti-anti-ship missile tech. Interceptor missiles worked great, until the French developed the Exocet. Sea skimming missiles come in too low to be stopped by most interceptor missiles. So the US developed the Close-In Weapon System (CIWS, "R2D2 with a hard-on"), designed specifically to track and destroy sea skimmers. And on it goes, as different groups seek technological advantages over the other. Work that is accomplished by scientists, real scientists, using science.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd think this mentality would apply to IT outsourcing firms. Afterall, their only product is IT consulting, so the geeks working for them are, in effect, raw material and finished product. However, most IT outsourcers will only pay for actual hours worked, and even then try to screw you on how many hours you get. Why this is, I don't get. But it's the main reason I left IT behind and am now agressively pursuing a career in commissioned sales. After all, when you make your money based on how much you sell of a given thing, you have no worries about inflation, since your pay will go up along with inflation (as your product goes up in value, and your percentage commission stays the same).
Can just anyone work in sales? Nope, it definitely takes a certain personality type. But for those of you who are outgoing, friendly, and can present yourselves in a professional manner, I highly recommend making the switch. Start with selling cars if you have to, if only to learn how to sell. Once you've mastered that, all kinds of doors will be open to you.
Ovitz did not deserve $140 million.
Who are you to say? I can't speak about the others, but this one is a total canard. Ovitz built and ran a hugely successful talent agency, which he was obliged to sever all ties to when he moved to Disney. So most of his $140 million in compensation was for giving up his ownership stake in Creative Artists Agency, not for anything he did (or didn't do) at Disney.
If this is true and if global temperatures are affected by CO2 emissions, then human activity is probably causing these storms to be (on the average) more severe.
Two 'ifs' in that sentance. Doesn't sound like something we should worry too much about.
Oh, and did anyone else see the report that the ice caps are melting...on Mars? Guess there must be something else going on other than CO2 in the atmosphere. I wonder what could effect the tempature on the Earth, and on Mars, at the same time??
They won't extend the same protection to other fetuses, that they themselves had enjoyed.
c tid=357
This reminds me of a great tee-shirt for babies:
http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?produ
It's interesting to note that "Earth" derives from Old English "eorthe" (pron. yorth), which is starting to sound an awful lot like "yoord", the literal pronounciation of "jord" if you don't mute the D.
Wow, almost like English and Norwegian come from the same language family or something!
Um, er, I inverted the numbers. Stupid, but honest, mistake.
Actually, it's 80% of the world. The US has a population of 280 million, with 6 billion in the world. That's about 20% of the total.
Are you this skeptical of all scientific theories or just global warming?
First, you should always be skeptical. Second, global warming isn't a theory, it's public policy masquerading as a theory.
The carbon that we are currently releasing into the atmosphere was previoiusly safely stored underground.
And it still accounts for a miniscule amount of carbon, compared to that released by natural sources.
This is a pedestrian term, not scientific.
What an amazingly arrogant thing to say about the most common definition of "proof". Do you have any proof that that definition is "pedestrian", or is it just your opinion?
Science doesn't deal in "truth."
You expect me to trust someone's position on an important policital point when he "doesn't deal in truth"? Pray tell me, what does science deal in, then? Twisting the facts to suit your own goals?
If you have evidence to refute global warming or something that says that humans are not significantly impacting the environment, I'd like to see that.
For someone who seems to think himself a scientist, you appear to have no grasp of the concept of "proving a negative". I can't prove that humans aren't affecting the environment. But you should be able to prove they are, but you've failed to do so. Therefore, you haven't proven your theory, so the theory is either flawed or outright wrong.
Besides, as I said at the beginning, the burden of proof is on you, not me. You're the one advancing a theory. Let's see you prove it correct.
With that kind of attitude towards science
That's not my attitude towards science, it's my attitude towards global warming.
Who was "shouting?"
Ever heard of the words "metaphor" or "hyperbole"?
I have made no extraordinary claims.
You claim that humans alone are the cause of any perceived global warming. Since the temperature of the earth has fluctuated throughout history, claiming human responsibility for a naturally occurring event is extraordinary.
FYI, there is no such thing "proof" in science. Only evidence and theories.
Is English your second language or something? Because you don't seem to grasp the nuance of certain words and phrases.
From synonym.com:
The noun proof has 6 senses (first 2 from tagged texts)
1. (10) proof, cogent evidence -- (any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something; "if you have any proof for what you say, now is the time to produce it")
Recognition of global warming is the modern equivalent of recognizing that the Earth does, in fact, revolve around the sun.
No, recognition of global warming is the modern equivalent of agreeing with the church...the church of science.
If you are not willing to look at the evidence outside your own little world, don't even bother commenting on the subject of global warming.
I am willing to look at that evidence, but you have to provide it and prove it has any merit. So far all the evidence I've seen is that things are slowly warming up. None of it says definitively what the cause is, and since the same doomsayers who predict global warming today were shouting about global cooling a few decades ago (remember we were supposed to be in an ice age by now?), I'm not going to waste my time until you can find some extraordinary proof to back up your extraordinary claims.
The fact that most of the people most in favor of "curtailing emissions" (which would slow down or even destroy our economy) are also a pack of socialists leads me to think they have an ulterior motive. But maybe that's just me being paranoid.
You have been hearing it from a few for a long time. Now you are hearing from a majority of respectable scientists.
By "respectable", you probably mean "those who agree with global warming." Also, science isn't something you put up to a vote. A majority of "respectable scientists" thought the sun revolved around the earth until Copernicus proved otherwise.
If you want evidence, look at your Glacier National Park. Check the temperature changes and mass changes of the glaciers. The evidence for climate change is there if you bother to look.
If it's so readily apparent, why can't I see it where I live? You want to prove global warming is happening, then provide the proof. Don't expect me to go looking for something I don't think is there. The burden of proof lies with you, my friend.
When did I say that I was speaking for anyone?
You kept prefacing your comments with "we this" and "we that". If that isn't speaking for someone, I don't know what is.
Muslims DID invade Jerusalem, and basically tried to take over. But on the other hand, they didn't attempt to hunt down every last Christian and destroy the entire population outright.
No, actually, they did attempt to exterminate the population. That's what prompted a continent-wide mobilization for war. Remember, the Crusades drew knights and men-at-arms from countries who either were at war each other, had been recently, or would be again in very short order. It would take something pretty big to get them all on the same team. Slaughtering of Christians would do it.
First: the Crusades were not a civil war.
Second: Americans left Europe to get away from their problems. If there's any group of people who don't owe anyone anything for the problems Europe has caused, it's us.
Third: My 30-greats granddad didn't fight in the Crusades. He was too busy settling down in his new lands in England. One or more of his grandsons probably went, though.
Too many Americans have no idea what the crusades are.
No, I think most Americans just realize they have nothing to do with us.
And maybe, just maybe that's why 90% of the country is thinking, "Well gee, I wonder why these muslim guys are trying to kill us? What did we ever do to them?"
Yeah, and those Americans are right. We never did anything to those people, and they need to realize it and get the fuck over it already.
We? We meaning Christians. Okay, so that's a very broad term. I'm not a Christian
Then what's this "we" shit, white man? Don't presume to speak for the over 2 billion Christians in the world when you are not one yourself.
Oh, and here's a little tidbit you probably don't know (or just plain ignored): the Crusades were justified, in concept if not in execution. The Muslims had invaded the Kingdom of Jerusalem and slaughtered the Christian inhabitants, and were threatening trade across the Mediterranean. Now, it's a sad truth that many of the Crusaders ransacked many towns, many Christian towns at that. But that's a function of the horrific truths of war at the time, it has no bearing on whether the goal of liberating the countries in question from their Muslim invaders was justified.
And we, meaning, in general, us Christians [sic] spent quite a hefty load of time murdering muslims back in the day.
Your point would be what? That people were mean to each other, once upon a time? Show me two groups of people who interacted with each other and who didn't subsequently commit horrific acts upon each other. Every nation and race is guilty of it, and I refuse to feel bad because my distant ancestors were savage towards someone else's distant ancestors. I also don't carry any grudges against others for what may, or may not, have happened to thirty-greats Grandpa Philip.
Yeah, because we never murdered middle easterners by the THOUSANDS during the crusades, did we?
I can guarantee that no Americans participated in any of the Crusades. Want to bet a dollar I'm right?
Though I think the Dutch probably did....
What were you trying to prove again?
And as far as I'm concerned, the only natives of north america are the people that were here 10 000 years ago.
You have to realize how idiotic it is to think that way, don't you? Stating that a person's ancestors have to have lived in a given location for 10,000 years before you can feel any kind of claim to the land, that's just absurd.
And look at it this way: my ancestors came from Ireland, England, and Germany, all within the last 150 years, some as recently as 70 years ago. By your way of thinking, I'm not a native. And yet, if someone told me to pack up and go home, where would that be? My last name is English, so Ireland is right out. And my most recent immigrant ancestors were German, aber keine Deutch spreche. I could go to England, but that would be spitting in the face of my English and Irish ancestors, none of whom wanted anything to do with that land.
So I'm a native of this land, if only because I have no place else to go.
Yeah, lots of exposure in the media. But did mobs vandalize their places of worship? Did members become victims of hate crimes? Or those that merely looked like sect members?
Yeah, I know, we Americans are so biggotted. The enlightened Europeans, especially the Dutch, would never torch mosques or lynch Arabs. Right?
Human beings are not defined by who they are, but rather who they are not. "The other" is an important concept to all human societies, and the fear of the other is a prime motivating factor for much of what we do. It would be nice for us to get past that basic instinct, just as we struggle to get past others, but this is something that only Americans have to struggle with.
What you do is you have a huge stash of embarassing hardcore porn, say 'bukkake bloopers 2000'
They see what you are 'hiding' and maybe laugh in your face
There's a joke in there somewhere, I just know it...
Very, very naive of you.
As long as money coming they will work on it.
Ah-ha! So any scientist who accepts money is not a real scientist. Gotcha.
It's going to be a long time before AI advances to the point where you could say "Computer, find me the clip of the Madonna song where she pretended to masturbate the first time", or "Computer, find me a copy of the unedited Zapruder tape, the one that shows the driver shooting Kennedy in the face*". Despite what CSI may have led you to believe, computers can't quite do that yet.
*Yes, it's true, in the unedited Zapruder tape, you can clearly see the driver turn around and pop a cap into his face, afterwards Kennedy's head snaps back and to the right. Don't believe me? Then put Yahoo to work, and and check this shit out!
First thing I searched was "Paris Hilton"...
I just tried this search, too. I was struck by a couple of things:
1) Man, that chick is skinny! Someone get her a cheeseburger. And I'm not one of those guys who's into so-called "BBW" type women, either. I just don't get into women who have asses like 12 yo boys.
2) She was, what, 18, when this clip was made? Just goes to show that sometimes enthusiasm is a poor substitute for experience.
The goggles! They do nothing!
As an aside, Canada and Mexico are American too.
Well, not yet you're not. But give it time. NAFTA was only phase one.
Oh, and for those who get upset with calling Americans "American", remember that only the United States of America uses "America" in the long form of the country name. Just like the citzens of the United Mexican States are typically called Mexicans, and the citizens of the (former) Dominion of Canada were called Canadians. You might live on the North American continent, but you are not an American.
Seriously, when someone talks about "death to America", do you honestly think they're talking about you?
This isn't science. Real scientists have said again and again that the whole missile defense system doesn't work and won't work for the forseeable future
Hmm, so all those rocket scientists and computer scientists, especially the ones with Ph.D.s, who are working on this project, they're not real scientists? Sounds like your definition of "real scientist" is "any scientist who agrees with my political leanings."
As for the system being trivial to defeat with new missile, well, duh, it's called the march of technology. The answer isn't to keep your head in the sand and say "this works for now", but to keep pushing ahead of the competition, forcing them to play catch-up with us. By the time someone has come up with a new missile that'll get past this system (once the system is working, that is), then we'll be ready to move on to its successor.
It's just like anti-anti-ship missile tech. Interceptor missiles worked great, until the French developed the Exocet. Sea skimming missiles come in too low to be stopped by most interceptor missiles. So the US developed the Close-In Weapon System (CIWS, "R2D2 with a hard-on"), designed specifically to track and destroy sea skimmers. And on it goes, as different groups seek technological advantages over the other. Work that is accomplished by scientists, real scientists, using science.
We sleep with our students because they're just so damn sexy in their cute little spring wardrobes.
The scary thing is, you're a kindergarten teacher!