I don't think the oath precludes one from pursuing financial gain. It seems to state that one would not abandon their ethics in that pursuit. There's nothing in that part that would contravene capitalism, unless you only think capitalism can survive in the most primitive, barbaric, dog-eat-dog environment.
The rest of it is poorly worded, though, I'll grant you that. I'd be curious if they meant "detriment" to mean only "physical" detriment; eg, they wouldn't participate in the Tuskegee experiment.
Damn it! And I thought I was clever because I'm automating creation of Xen instances for a MySQL cluster. Oh well, at least it pays better than graduate work.
You mean to go along with the 75 offices they have all over the world? By comparison, this is a pretty small problem for a company of that size to have.
#1 is good, #2 sounds good on paper but would be hard to enforce (would Google just be a "page of ads"?)
I'd add #3: increase the ICANN registration fee for each additional domain being created at once by $0.05 for the first 10, then $1.00 for the next 100, then $10.00 for each one after that. It would have negligible effect on anyone but squatters, and would have the added bonus of helping to fund ICANN. Squatters could still register on the cheap, just not tens of thousands of domains at once.
When I think of the modern Republican party, I think of Rove like people who do anything or say anything about their opponent to win, and once in office, they remain in constant campaign mode, slandering their opponents, hiring only those loyal to the president and firing those who do not do their bidding. Funny, that's what I think of when I think of the Democratic party.
I certainly hope you don't think you can counter the likes of Karl Rove simply by being honorable... Rove isn't McCain's campaign director. It's unfair to tarnish McCain for Rove's actions (especially when he was a victim of them, himself, in 2000 and 2004).
"NYT reveals name of KSM's chief interrogator -- against CIA's wishes"
Which means this person, their family, their neighbors, their coworkers, all of their lives are in danger now thanks to the solid reporting of the New York Times. Are you screaming and ranting and raving about it? Or is it no big deal, because it wasn't leaked by some deputy in the State Department after he drank too much at a cocktail party, thereby allowing you to hate Bush?
Except that I've tried my approach in the past, and it's worked fairly consistently (2 out of 3). Sometimes being obnoxious is the right way to go (especially if she's all broken up over some jerk who treated her that way, that's obviously what she's into).
I think I read somewhere that New York city is apparently double or triple the national average. So you're saying there are lots of sluts in NYC? Someone should make a TV show centered on that.
"I don't want to ruin our friendship" The best response to this line is: "I don't have time for these games, call me when you grow up." Then get up and leave.
The hard part? Not calling her again, ever, for any reason. She might call, she might not, but either way your sense of self-respect will shoot through the roof.
I think you either are seriously confused about what hard drive encryption is, or you replied to the wrong comment. I think the latter is more likely, but you never know.
First, Armitage's "leak" was more a slip of the tongue. Second, Plame wasn't in covert status at the time, so it wasn't a big deal. Third, the only people I've seen get excited about it completely ignore the dozens of other leaks that happen all the time.
Yes, leaks are a problem. This wasn't a leak, though, and unless you have a problem with the New York Times publishing classified data on the SWIFT banking intel (among other things), you're not allowed to care about this non-incident, IMO.
Uhm... does the name Valerie Plame ring a bell? Uhm, does the name Dick Armitage ring a bell?
Did you get upset with the New York Times when they published details of the SWIFT banking intel? Or is it only bothersome when you have a chance to hate on Bush?
I'd like to ask - does it matter? Yes, it does, but not for any of the reasons you listed. kdawson, and much of the media, will only state party affiliation in stories like this when it's a Republican who's behind it. The same thing happened with the Countrywide story the other day. That kind of double standard shouldn't exist.
Youve done a great job Nancy stopping the republicans! The bill was introduced by a Democrat. So I'm not sure why you mention "stopping the Republicans".
Even "small" stuff like purposely revealing the name and occupation of an active CIA agent working abroad. Never happened. Stick with the things that really did occur (like all the other stuff you listed), and you won't end up annoying potential allies.
Slashdot Mirror
Fast food "service" isn't a service industry job, it's a retail job. There's a world of difference between those two.
IT and most math jobs are closer to be service industry jobs, since you're not working with a physical product.
Heretic! Follow the shoe!
I don't think the oath precludes one from pursuing financial gain. It seems to state that one would not abandon their ethics in that pursuit. There's nothing in that part that would contravene capitalism, unless you only think capitalism can survive in the most primitive, barbaric, dog-eat-dog environment.
The rest of it is poorly worded, though, I'll grant you that. I'd be curious if they meant "detriment" to mean only "physical" detriment; eg, they wouldn't participate in the Tuskegee experiment.
Damn it! And I thought I was clever because I'm automating creation of Xen instances for a MySQL cluster. Oh well, at least it pays better than graduate work.
Good point. Guess I'm not as devious as I thought I was as that never occurred to me.
You mean to go along with the 75 offices they have all over the world? By comparison, this is a pretty small problem for a company of that size to have.
#1 is good, #2 sounds good on paper but would be hard to enforce (would Google just be a "page of ads"?)
I'd add #3: increase the ICANN registration fee for each additional domain being created at once by $0.05 for the first 10, then $1.00 for the next 100, then $10.00 for each one after that. It would have negligible effect on anyone but squatters, and would have the added bonus of helping to fund ICANN. Squatters could still register on the cheap, just not tens of thousands of domains at once.
Now it's time to start calling up all those RoR sites and use this to convince them to switch the Django.
I'd like to know how outraged you are over this:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/21/nyt-reveals-name-of-ksms-chief-interrogator-against-cias-wishes/
"NYT reveals name of KSM's chief interrogator -- against CIA's wishes"
Which means this person, their family, their neighbors, their coworkers, all of their lives are in danger now thanks to the solid reporting of the New York Times. Are you screaming and ranting and raving about it? Or is it no big deal, because it wasn't leaked by some deputy in the State Department after he drank too much at a cocktail party, thereby allowing you to hate Bush?
Except that I've tried my approach in the past, and it's worked fairly consistently (2 out of 3). Sometimes being obnoxious is the right way to go (especially if she's all broken up over some jerk who treated her that way, that's obviously what she's into).
The hard part? Not calling her again, ever, for any reason. She might call, she might not, but either way your sense of self-respect will shoot through the roof.
I think you either are seriously confused about what hard drive encryption is, or you replied to the wrong comment. I think the latter is more likely, but you never know.
First, Armitage's "leak" was more a slip of the tongue. Second, Plame wasn't in covert status at the time, so it wasn't a big deal. Third, the only people I've seen get excited about it completely ignore the dozens of other leaks that happen all the time.
Yes, leaks are a problem. This wasn't a leak, though, and unless you have a problem with the New York Times publishing classified data on the SWIFT banking intel (among other things), you're not allowed to care about this non-incident, IMO.
Did you get upset with the New York Times when they published details of the SWIFT banking intel? Or is it only bothersome when you have a chance to hate on Bush?
According to the summary, Steny Hoyer is just some random Congressman. No party affiliation, not even a state.
According to the man's website, he's a Democrat.
Now, I wonder why a story posted by kdawson would neglect to mention a Democrat's party affiliation?
So your girlfriend is 6?