To my knowledge, Mexico possesses an air force. Air forces are used to drop bombs on enemy locations using airplanes (and to use other airplanes to protect the ones carrying bombs).
It really can't be that hard to figure out where these cartels operate from. Once you know that, the solution is simple: drop bombs on them. You can't have an operating cartel if their mansions and other bases are blown to smithereens.
It's not much different from Google. Google has long had a "throw shit at a wall and see what sticks" approach to business. But unlike Canonical, Google already had a cash cow in the form of its search service and the attached advertising services, and then later its Gmail service, so it could afford this kind of approach.
How does creating JavaScript qualify one to be the head of a company, or any kind of manager of people at all? What gave you the idea that being good at CS makes one good at running a business, or dealing with people?
As for knowledge and wisdom, I'm sure a bunch of people thought Nathan Bedford Forrest had those traits too. I wouldn't want to work at a company helmed by him. Someone who's obviously biased strongly against a group of people has no business running a company that (given its location especially) most probably has some employees who are part of that group.
The USA would have failed already without California.
Would that be such a bad thing? Personally, I think the western states should all secede from the union. Let's see how well Washington and New York do without the western states' tech industries. The entire economy of New York for instance is built on playing around with funny money, rather than building anything real and useful.
Some opponents of "gay marriage" are just caught up on the word "marriage" and think that marriage itself shouldn't be a legal practice but one relegated to the churches and that some other legal term should replace what we currently call "marriage."
Then those opponents are idiots. Whatever you want to call the term, the state has provided this privilege for people (for whatever purposes, encouraging family-forming, encouraging couple-dom because it's more societally stable than singledom, whatever), and it's wrong to deny it to a class of people. I don't see the opponents rallying to rename state-sanctioned "marriage" to "civil unions", I just see them railing against "gay marriage". Some have said they support gay "civil unions", but those CUs are not equivalent to state-sanctioned marriages (don't have all the same rights and privileges), so that's no different that the old "separate but equal" crap the anti-black bigots used to promote.
As long as you have a privilege or right accorded to one group (a large majority, no less) and denied to another group, that really isn't very different from slavery, an institution where rights are denied to a minority group.
This is BS. Being against gay marriage is little different than supporting slavery. In each case, you want to deny rights to a group of people based on something they have no control over.
As for polygamy, that's not too different either. Society prohibiting that is yet another case of preventing people from having the freedom to do what they will and define their relationships the way they want, with the person or persons they want.
Why do we need a "debate" about what people do in their bedrooms, or who they choose to have relationships with?
Actually, yes. Obama is a right-winger who only switched his stance on gay marriage when it became clear that more people (esp. Democrat voters) really wanted that and he didn't want to further disillusion the Democratic base with his right-wing stances.
You must have me confused with someone else. I'm an orc captain who was stomped on by a walking tree. I'm spending my afterlife debating various topics on the internet.
Offline mailreaders are not the same as webmail services. Did any other webmail services offer conversation threading when Gmail started? I don't believe so.
Same goes for tagging. When Gmail came out, the other webmail services didn't have any of this stuff, and they didn't have any storage space either. Gmail had these features plus 1GB of space, a huge amount for the time when limits of 25MB were common.
Yes, today the KKK is a joke, but what if it weren't? And what if Microsoft hired a KKK leader as their CEO? Would a boycott be unreasonable then? Finally, CEOs are not mere employees. They're basically the head of the company, only answerable to the board of directors. That's "real power" as you put it.
Please don't conflate the reboot movies with the shows and movies that Roddenberry had a hand in. Roddenberry's shows had their problems to be sure, but remember the first series came out in the 60s, at roughly the same time the totally silly "Lost in Space" aired. They can be forgiven for screwing up some technological details back then. The later episodes, not as much, but still. And the plots weren't horrible, and many times were actually fairly brilliant in exploring social issues (different episodes had different writers after all, and the scriptwriting resources available for a TV show are usually much less than those available to a blockbuster movie). The reboots are just plain bad.
Now you're getting into another argument. It IS a privilege defined by the state, but it's discriminatory for that privilege to only be offered to some people and not to a minority.
If you don't think the privilege should be offered to anyone at all, that's fine, and certainly non-discriminatory, but it sidesteps the argument.
However, it's not really religious institution, though the religionists have tried to paint it that way. Marriage has been around for far longer than Christianity. It's really a social institution used for political or family alliances, controlling inheritance, controlling breeding, etc. It's only been in relatively recent history that the idea of allowing people to marry whoever they want came about; they used to be arranged. Regardless, the reason for it is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that it's a privilege (such as lower taxes as you note), so if it's available to one group, it should be available to everyone. Or it should be eliminated.
I don't think you're going to get many to agree to eliminate it though. Marriage has many other benefits besides taxes, such as SS/Medicare/VA benefits, inheritance rights, etc. Personally I think the whole thing should be totally revamped to make it more like regular contract law, so that people can pick the marriage contract they want (instead of only having one set of rules decided for you by the State you live in, and varying state-to-state, such as community property vs. non), eliminating the need for prenuptial agreements (which are basically a big hack), and also allowing group marriages.
Supposedly, the inertial dampers couldn't react in time for that, or the magnitude of those shocks was greater than the dampers could handle. Yeah, it's BS; we have systems now that can react in tens of microseconds (like car ABS and stability control systems, not to mention high-performance fighter jet control systems).
The other thing that's even dumber was the bridge consoles constantly exploding and injuring people. Why would so much power be routed through those control consoles? There shouldn't be any more than 12V power going to those things to run the touchscreens.
No, I don't. You're denying people a right or privilege that most other people have, for no reason other than bigotry. It's obviously not nearly as bad as slavery, but it's a lot like denying the right to vote. You're saying that this group of people are second-class citizens and don't get the full rights and privileges that everyone else does.
Did you have a bunch of loud-mouth business majors blabbing all day in the computer lab? The other problem with these open work environments is they aren't just staffed by a bunch of quiet geeks, they've got everyone else thrown in there or sitting nearby. I currently sit across the corridor from some supply chain manager who leaves his office door open and talks loudly on the speakerphone.
I had group assignments too at Virginia Tech in my BSEE program. I'm not complaining about group work, or dealing with personalities. I've frequently had to work with other people at work, but the key is: I don't usually sit right next to them (actually, one time I did, but we had full-height cubicle walls, which worked out really well). In better workplaces, I had a full-size cube with full-height walls, and when I needed to work with others, we'd visit each others' cubes, or go to a conference room, or meet in the lab (or have a phone conference). This isn't anything new; cubicle drones have had to collaborate since the dawn of cubicledom.
What's new is having an open, noisy work environment where you have zero privacy and people are constantly talking or walking by your desk, preventing you from deeply concentrating on anything. These environments are frequently touted as "fostering collaboration", but IME the desks are assigned somewhat randomly, so it's unlikely you'll collaborate with the people directly adjacent to you (and moving people around is too expensive and time-consuming, esp. for the IT dept, so they never do that).
No, because they showed them changing the wings' position during flight in the movies (I believe one big place was when they were attacking the Death Star in Ep.4).
Also, there aren't any fighter aircraft which fold their wings for storage that I can think of. If you're thinking of the F-14 Tomcat of Top Gun infamy, it changed its wings' position in-flight to switch from low-speed to high-speed modes. The wings were kept out for greater lift at low speeds (esp. useful for takeoff from an aircraft carrier due to the very short launch length), and folded in for supersonic flight.
I know of no state that issues driver's licenses without any kind of test,
My driving test consisted of three right turns. Lots of other states are just as lax. That's not a test. That's a joke. That does equate to "no standards".
Um, I'm sorry to break it to you, but the companies I've seen this at are not "run by 20-somethings". For instance, I'm currently contracting at a defense contractor where the cubicle walls are very low and there's no real privacy, and I have a constant stream of people walking right in front of my desk all day. This company is as old as the hills. I worked at another company with an more open layout a while ago; that company I believe was started in the early-mid 1980s. The managers (not young people, maybe 40s-60s) told us how this layout was great for "collaboration"; meanwhile these managers had walled offices for themselves, and I almost never had to collaborate with anyone for my job there (and never with my immediate neighbors). Here in the NYC area, Bloomberg LP is a very big employer, and they're known for having a totally open work environment with open tables. ex-Mayor Bloomberg is not a 20-something by any stretch of the imagination.
From what I can tell, this whole "open plan work environment" concept is a management fad that mostly built steam in the late 90s or later, and is currently on the upswing despite lots of studies showing it to be a productivity-killer.
I wonder what would happen if we to break California apart into two sections (north and south), and hold the vote again.
But seriously, as for boycotting CA, the problem there is that you'd probably need to boycott most of the US. I'm pretty sure only a minority of states have legalized it (but many of those states are highly-populated, like CA, NY, IL, and NJ).
Microsoft and Apple are smart enough to not get involved in political issues, and don't hire CEOs who are outspoken on political issues.
Quick, what's Larry Ellison's stand on gay marriage? You don't know, because he's never publicly stated anything on this issue, or anything political.
The only time companies like this take political stands is when it affects business directly and their bottom lines (which is why you see them pushing for higher H1B limits).
Slashdot Mirror
To my knowledge, Mexico possesses an air force. Air forces are used to drop bombs on enemy locations using airplanes (and to use other airplanes to protect the ones carrying bombs).
It really can't be that hard to figure out where these cartels operate from. Once you know that, the solution is simple: drop bombs on them. You can't have an operating cartel if their mansions and other bases are blown to smithereens.
It's not much different from Google. Google has long had a "throw shit at a wall and see what sticks" approach to business. But unlike Canonical, Google already had a cash cow in the form of its search service and the attached advertising services, and then later its Gmail service, so it could afford this kind of approach.
Your version of hell must be far, far worse than mine. I haven't been forced to use Beta, yet. That would indeed be a truly horrible afterlife.
How does creating JavaScript qualify one to be the head of a company, or any kind of manager of people at all? What gave you the idea that being good at CS makes one good at running a business, or dealing with people?
As for knowledge and wisdom, I'm sure a bunch of people thought Nathan Bedford Forrest had those traits too. I wouldn't want to work at a company helmed by him. Someone who's obviously biased strongly against a group of people has no business running a company that (given its location especially) most probably has some employees who are part of that group.
The USA would have failed already without California.
Would that be such a bad thing? Personally, I think the western states should all secede from the union. Let's see how well Washington and New York do without the western states' tech industries. The entire economy of New York for instance is built on playing around with funny money, rather than building anything real and useful.
Some opponents of "gay marriage" are just caught up on the word "marriage" and think that marriage itself shouldn't be a legal practice but one relegated to the churches and that some other legal term should replace what we currently call "marriage."
Then those opponents are idiots. Whatever you want to call the term, the state has provided this privilege for people (for whatever purposes, encouraging family-forming, encouraging couple-dom because it's more societally stable than singledom, whatever), and it's wrong to deny it to a class of people. I don't see the opponents rallying to rename state-sanctioned "marriage" to "civil unions", I just see them railing against "gay marriage". Some have said they support gay "civil unions", but those CUs are not equivalent to state-sanctioned marriages (don't have all the same rights and privileges), so that's no different that the old "separate but equal" crap the anti-black bigots used to promote.
As long as you have a privilege or right accorded to one group (a large majority, no less) and denied to another group, that really isn't very different from slavery, an institution where rights are denied to a minority group.
This is BS. Being against gay marriage is little different than supporting slavery. In each case, you want to deny rights to a group of people based on something they have no control over.
As for polygamy, that's not too different either. Society prohibiting that is yet another case of preventing people from having the freedom to do what they will and define their relationships the way they want, with the person or persons they want.
Why do we need a "debate" about what people do in their bedrooms, or who they choose to have relationships with?
Actually, yes. Obama is a right-winger who only switched his stance on gay marriage when it became clear that more people (esp. Democrat voters) really wanted that and he didn't want to further disillusion the Democratic base with his right-wing stances.
Count? Get out? Out of where?
You must have me confused with someone else. I'm an orc captain who was stomped on by a walking tree. I'm spending my afterlife debating various topics on the internet.
Offline mailreaders are not the same as webmail services. Did any other webmail services offer conversation threading when Gmail started? I don't believe so.
Same goes for tagging. When Gmail came out, the other webmail services didn't have any of this stuff, and they didn't have any storage space either. Gmail had these features plus 1GB of space, a huge amount for the time when limits of 25MB were common.
Yes, today the KKK is a joke, but what if it weren't? And what if Microsoft hired a KKK leader as their CEO? Would a boycott be unreasonable then? Finally, CEOs are not mere employees. They're basically the head of the company, only answerable to the board of directors. That's "real power" as you put it.
Please don't conflate the reboot movies with the shows and movies that Roddenberry had a hand in. Roddenberry's shows had their problems to be sure, but remember the first series came out in the 60s, at roughly the same time the totally silly "Lost in Space" aired. They can be forgiven for screwing up some technological details back then. The later episodes, not as much, but still. And the plots weren't horrible, and many times were actually fairly brilliant in exploring social issues (different episodes had different writers after all, and the scriptwriting resources available for a TV show are usually much less than those available to a blockbuster movie). The reboots are just plain bad.
Now you're getting into another argument. It IS a privilege defined by the state, but it's discriminatory for that privilege to only be offered to some people and not to a minority.
If you don't think the privilege should be offered to anyone at all, that's fine, and certainly non-discriminatory, but it sidesteps the argument.
However, it's not really religious institution, though the religionists have tried to paint it that way. Marriage has been around for far longer than Christianity. It's really a social institution used for political or family alliances, controlling inheritance, controlling breeding, etc. It's only been in relatively recent history that the idea of allowing people to marry whoever they want came about; they used to be arranged. Regardless, the reason for it is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that it's a privilege (such as lower taxes as you note), so if it's available to one group, it should be available to everyone. Or it should be eliminated.
I don't think you're going to get many to agree to eliminate it though. Marriage has many other benefits besides taxes, such as SS/Medicare/VA benefits, inheritance rights, etc. Personally I think the whole thing should be totally revamped to make it more like regular contract law, so that people can pick the marriage contract they want (instead of only having one set of rules decided for you by the State you live in, and varying state-to-state, such as community property vs. non), eliminating the need for prenuptial agreements (which are basically a big hack), and also allowing group marriages.
I wasn't thinking of WWII-era planes, and had forgotten about the AWACS plane, but I didn't realize the F-18 also had folding wings.
Supposedly, the inertial dampers couldn't react in time for that, or the magnitude of those shocks was greater than the dampers could handle. Yeah, it's BS; we have systems now that can react in tens of microseconds (like car ABS and stability control systems, not to mention high-performance fighter jet control systems).
The other thing that's even dumber was the bridge consoles constantly exploding and injuring people. Why would so much power be routed through those control consoles? There shouldn't be any more than 12V power going to those things to run the touchscreens.
No, I don't. You're denying people a right or privilege that most other people have, for no reason other than bigotry. It's obviously not nearly as bad as slavery, but it's a lot like denying the right to vote. You're saying that this group of people are second-class citizens and don't get the full rights and privileges that everyone else does.
Yeah, unfortunately no organization is completely spotless, and there aren't many browser makers to choose from.
Did you have a bunch of loud-mouth business majors blabbing all day in the computer lab? The other problem with these open work environments is they aren't just staffed by a bunch of quiet geeks, they've got everyone else thrown in there or sitting nearby. I currently sit across the corridor from some supply chain manager who leaves his office door open and talks loudly on the speakerphone.
I had group assignments too at Virginia Tech in my BSEE program. I'm not complaining about group work, or dealing with personalities. I've frequently had to work with other people at work, but the key is: I don't usually sit right next to them (actually, one time I did, but we had full-height cubicle walls, which worked out really well). In better workplaces, I had a full-size cube with full-height walls, and when I needed to work with others, we'd visit each others' cubes, or go to a conference room, or meet in the lab (or have a phone conference). This isn't anything new; cubicle drones have had to collaborate since the dawn of cubicledom.
What's new is having an open, noisy work environment where you have zero privacy and people are constantly talking or walking by your desk, preventing you from deeply concentrating on anything. These environments are frequently touted as "fostering collaboration", but IME the desks are assigned somewhat randomly, so it's unlikely you'll collaborate with the people directly adjacent to you (and moving people around is too expensive and time-consuming, esp. for the IT dept, so they never do that).
When you publicly donate to a political cause, no one's "dragging you onto a soapbox", you're doing it all by yourself.
No, because they showed them changing the wings' position during flight in the movies (I believe one big place was when they were attacking the Death Star in Ep.4).
Also, there aren't any fighter aircraft which fold their wings for storage that I can think of. If you're thinking of the F-14 Tomcat of Top Gun infamy, it changed its wings' position in-flight to switch from low-speed to high-speed modes. The wings were kept out for greater lift at low speeds (esp. useful for takeoff from an aircraft carrier due to the very short launch length), and folded in for supersonic flight.
I know of no state that issues driver's licenses without any kind of test,
My driving test consisted of three right turns. Lots of other states are just as lax. That's not a test. That's a joke. That does equate to "no standards".
Um, I'm sorry to break it to you, but the companies I've seen this at are not "run by 20-somethings". For instance, I'm currently contracting at a defense contractor where the cubicle walls are very low and there's no real privacy, and I have a constant stream of people walking right in front of my desk all day. This company is as old as the hills. I worked at another company with an more open layout a while ago; that company I believe was started in the early-mid 1980s. The managers (not young people, maybe 40s-60s) told us how this layout was great for "collaboration"; meanwhile these managers had walled offices for themselves, and I almost never had to collaborate with anyone for my job there (and never with my immediate neighbors). Here in the NYC area, Bloomberg LP is a very big employer, and they're known for having a totally open work environment with open tables. ex-Mayor Bloomberg is not a 20-something by any stretch of the imagination.
From what I can tell, this whole "open plan work environment" concept is a management fad that mostly built steam in the late 90s or later, and is currently on the upswing despite lots of studies showing it to be a productivity-killer.
I wonder what would happen if we to break California apart into two sections (north and south), and hold the vote again.
But seriously, as for boycotting CA, the problem there is that you'd probably need to boycott most of the US. I'm pretty sure only a minority of states have legalized it (but many of those states are highly-populated, like CA, NY, IL, and NJ).
Microsoft and Apple are smart enough to not get involved in political issues, and don't hire CEOs who are outspoken on political issues.
Quick, what's Larry Ellison's stand on gay marriage? You don't know, because he's never publicly stated anything on this issue, or anything political.
The only time companies like this take political stands is when it affects business directly and their bottom lines (which is why you see them pushing for higher H1B limits).