ThIs meSsEGe iS TO warN YoU tHaT YoU aRe in gr_E_at daNG3r
Do you know how hard it is to cut and paste letters from different publications just to send a death threat via email? God, it would be take less time to just off you and not bother with the tags...;)
dont forget one other important aspect of flash: its fairly easy to use, built libraries with, etc. I don't know if you have ever used it, but I bought MX a couple years back for some projects (than have since been switched to gif files) and found it very easy to build content with. From my experience, you can be very productive with it. Less time, more content. That is one reason people like publishing with it.
I'm sorry, sir, but the pencils are currently down. We have a tech coming out to replace the sharpeners tomorrow morning.
That was actually pretty funny, and at least somewhat accurate. I personally find that being abusive, rude and cussing a lot speeds up the process since they don't want to deal with you. I mean, what are they going to do, cancel your account?;)
yea, i know it requires plugins, which is both good and bad. What gets me, is all the people spewing venom (not talking about your polite comment) about how flash sucks, and how it only supports 98% of all operating systems, blah blah blah, when it appears to me that if someone can install BSD, then they can probably install a dual boot system for all the other things they can't run. If they feel that anti MS, fine, then pirate a copy of 98 so they can REALLY screw MS. Not like its hard. I run about a dozen different OS's, so I know its not that damn hard.
The entire homestarrunner.com site is flash, and much of it is pretty good (especially if buzzed) if a bit amateurish in some ways. Great visuals, very good voice, mixed writing. Its worth installing flash on Linux/BSD/whatever, even if it takes a few extra steps.
If they didn't use flash, they couldn't do the stuff they do, active games, totally interactive menus, etc. with html, and god knows cross support for Java is screwed up thanks to MS.
I think it means we are the beta testers, and the goal is to make it LOOK and feel the same, just different mechanically.
Believe me, anytime something isn't working right, you can just grep through the comments and find all the complains and debugging information you can stand.
People pirate SONGS because they dont want to pay $15-$20 to buy a CD with one or two songs that don't suck. Right or wrong, its why, at least for some of us.
Wife just bought the new Grechen Wilson CD. She says every song sucks, except the one she bought it for, Redneck Woman. Typical. $16.99 for one song.
We went to the beach last weekend, listening to some old CD, back when artists released ALBUMS instead of compilations. John Cougar/Uh huh, Eagles/Hotel California, etc. Artists used to make albums that had flow, where each song wasn't a hit but added to the whole thing, and was more than an afterthought. They just don't make them anymore, its all 1 or 2 singles, and a shit load of filler because people expect around 10 songs on a CD.
I still buy CDs of old music, but I personally don't buy a CD until I have downloaded it first. 99% of what I download gets trashed within the hour, not worth buying and not worth keeping for free.
I can't claim I'm any more correct than those studies. I can tell you that internet porn is so wide spread that it'd make one wonder why rape isn't more common place.
Because of the bias in the studies, which may or may not be intentional. If you structure the data correctly, you can show much of anything.
90% of all Americans eat beef. 90% of all people have stubbed their toe before. Does eating beef make you stub your toe?
I can believe that the majority of rapists view porno, but that is far from saying it causes people to rape. Rape is a crime of violence, not a way for a guy to get sexual relief.
Its similar to the studies linking heart attacks and meat consumption. Well, it was OBVIOUS that beef causes heart attacks, right? But only in certain countries. Italy, for example, had high cholesterol consumption but low heart attacks. Years later, someone starting looking at SUGAR consumption and found a more powerful link. (Atkins) Neither is totally conclusive, but it shows the inaccuracy of any statics, at least most of the time;) You can find any link you WANT to, if you look at it subjectively.
Its very easy, the confusion between men and women. Once women realize that men are incredibly simple creatures, and they should leave us alone, they can be happier. Its very simple:
Women want ONE man to fulfill her EVERY need.
Men want EVERY woman to fulfill his ONE need.
Its almost that simple, really. You want to impress a man? Show up naked, bring food, and don't block the TV. We really don't need much, but we can't stand being bitched at, or told our constant hornyness is wrong or bad. You leave us alone about dirty movies, lighten up a little, and we will do anything for you. Anything. Fortunately, my wife already knows this, which is one reason I married her.
To all the women here reading slashdot (both of you), please pass this on.
I always thought of it as Slashdot, where even trivial news from Groklaw gets repeated on a daily basis.
Actually, its been almost three weeks since slashdot posted an SCO story. Wired on McBride on June 26th. I don't think a story every 2 to 3 weeks is so bad, considering the potential ramifications.
Yes, it is an interference in the free market, but in the same way that laws against child labour are too.
This is an insane comparison. You can't compare a companies right to code their own website, to a company wanting to pay 10 year olds to work in a coal mine. This is a weak attempt to make a point where none exists.
As this is a commercial website based in the UK, the company has to respect the laws of this country.
ok, so by that reasoning, let's say i'm a shopkeeper who hates blacks and chinese. it's in my interest to let them into my shop, but i choose not to. and there should be no law to make me. yup, sounds great...
There is more than a fine line between blatant racism, and forcing companies to accomodate customers. This is just *looking* for an arguement, and it does not represent what I said, or what I believe. One is hate, the other is a respect for rights. You might disagree with my interpretation of rights, but why you would think I hate anyone is beyond me. If I hate anything, its government overreaching and stepping on small businesses.
And by the way, in many (if not most) US states, business owners have the right to refuse service, to anyone, for any reason, without explanation. They already *have* this right, and yes, I am sure it cuts both ways, and it is used for the wrong reasons as often as the right, such as the recent Denny's cases, where black customers were forced to prepay for food service after dark.
Again, this is not what I said or implied. This is your own imagination.
If you choose to incorporate, why the frell not? Society's giving you that liability limitation, the least the corporation can do is provide reasonable accomodations to all. Corporate status is not a god-given right.
Er, it is the USA. Anyone can form a corporation, without any limitation. You don't even have to incorporate here, or be a citizen. The government has no ability to NOT allow you to incorporate.
You see, that is exactly what I am talking about. I believe we have more rights, and the government is taking them AWAY with this type of regulation.
Apparently you have never been to europe... Outside of Switzerland, the governments of most European countries regulate everything they can think of. This is why there arent very many new businesses (And as such, much native economic growth). Too much paperwork, and too many rules.
I deal with European companies all the time, so I know exactly what you mean. My goal is to yell loud enough that America never has to face that kind of social and economic oppression. We looked into partnering a business with someone in Germany, until our CPA explained the taxes, and then we laughed our asses off, and will just focus on the US, thank you....
Too bad, it would have created several good paying jobs both in Germany and here in the states (also Romania and Hungary), but you don't invest half a million to pay 70% or more in taxes. I am shocked anyone opens a business there, considering the rewards are much lower than the risks.
THAT IS NOT THE POINT! (sorry, but everyone is missing the point here)
The point is that the Government should NOT be creating laws like this. Doesn't matter how wonderful, fair, helpful, etc. It is simply not the government's job to over regulate and FORCE a private company to do this. I don't care what the circumstances are, it is oppressive. The government should only do for us what we can not do for ourselves.
If you can't access the site, GO TO ANOTHER SITE. Give another theatre your money instead. Vote with your wallet. There is NO overwhelming Govt. interest to interfere here, because you have a choice.
No, but would it be so bad to require use of the ALT tag for images (especially images that are used as buttons) so that screen-reading software has something to work with?
Yes. Yes it would. Not because it is difficult, but because its NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS. It is an overreach of their authority. It is NOT the government's business to fscking nanny everyone.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I am here to help." -- Ronald Reagan
a site like Odeon's could easily (reasonably) been written in a more cross-browser fashion that would have allowed screenreaders to access it. A flash-only site might be flash-only for a reason, thus making HTML-only not a reasonable accomodation, and thus not legally required.
I agree it is in their best interest to make the site accessible. Common business sense. I do not believe, however, that this is something the government should have the power to regulate. It is a private business. If they want to be stupid and make their site inaccessible, so be it. Choose another theatre chain, it is their loss.
In the event where you do NOT have a choice, such as courthouses, other govt. buildings, your utility companies, public transportation, etc., THEN there is an overwhelming Govt. interest in insuring you have access. I have no beef, and openly (and loudly) SUPPORT requiring equal and fair access.
Just my opinion. I personally think the government (any) tend to overreach common sense limits in a grab for power, all in the name of "protecting" someone or group.
The *REAL* problem now is not that some theatre chain makes their site inaccessible, its all the pre-existing courthouses that have been "grandfathered" while not affording others the same priveleges. This is "do as I say, not as I do" and yet another oppressive mechanism where those in power don't live up to the same standards they put on the rest of us.
I am sure you have been hearing about the case of the guy who refused to be carried up the courthouse stairs, and was arrested recently....
Lots of people are spouting lots of FUD here. Of course the site should be assessable. But the Disabilities Act does not require anyone except government agencies and a few other select public service entities to have assessable web sites.
So, is a theatre exempted (thus the story is bogus because they are not in violation) or are they not exempted, and fall into the catagory of "government agencies and a few other select public service entities"?
My point is simple: If its not a govt. agency or a legal monopoly, then the govt. should not regulate access to it. It is in the business owners best interests, but it should NOT be law. Period. It is an overreach of authority.
Well yes, their website *does* violate the DDA, but it's not in the hands of J Random Public to take matters into their own hands, there *are* proper channels for this.
yes yes, i agree, the guy is in the wrong. No arguement there.;) The guy mirroring the site was in no way taking on this laws, rut rather a vigilante attempt to enforce it. I can't help but to get side tracked when the it appears the law is wrong. I worry more about Governments oppressing people with laws designed "to protect us" than I do about copycat sites. I'm funny that way.
A tangent, perhaps, but to me the law is a bigger concern than the violation of it.
I agree that you can't just use someone elses work because you want to, but there is another issue I am concerned with, this Disability Discrimination Act and how it is a violation to have a web site that isn't accessible to everyone.
I see the logic in making your site as accessible to everyone, and much logic in forcing certain buildings to be accessible to those with disabilities, particularly Government buildings. But this "Act" would seem to make it illegal to make a site that is all flash, or accessible to Opera only, etc. It seems that it is in the webmaster's best interest to allow the widest audience to use the site, but I don't see how it is any government business how a private company codes its website. Frankly, its no one's business if I want to code my own site to be inaccessible to anyone I want. Even Microsoft won't let you update Windows automatically without IE, which is their right.
This is a theatre chain, they should have the right to design their website as they see fit. Going online to view movie listings falls far short of the what any government should regulate. Should we pass a law that requires all websites (blogs, family home pages, theatres, slashdot, etc) to have every bit of text, including the html source, as audio, to make the site accessible to blind people?
If you're shmoozing clients in the corporate world, I'm not laughing. I'm pitying you. It sounds like a yucky way to live.
Let see, paid trips all over the US (just got back from Vegas, paid trip, didn't do any work), including meals and expenses, I have incredibly flexible hours, work from home often, run my own dept., take an average of 6 weeks vacation a year (not counting biz trips) and get paid well. Schmoozing clients is not such a bad price, especially since over half my clients are pretty cool guys and gals. I work hard 6 months a year, and take it very easy 6 months a year.
Maybe SOME people in the corporate world have sucky jobs, but I am pretty lucky. The "suck to cool" ratio in my job is quite nice. Then again, when the shit hits the fan, I'm the "Go To Guy". Still, an easy price to pay, considering all the benefits.
naw, not at all. If it sounded that way, it was purely accidental. I like my job, lots of freedom. But the point was that not everyone can do without a car, nor would we want to. I am not saying you are being this way, but there are lots of people who live next to work, and get self rightous about other driving. They forget that many people live in middle usa where work may be many miles away and there is no public transport.
But no, I love my truck, chevy 2500hd extended. Less than 5000 miles on it, almost 14 miles to the gallon, and the Europeans that visit often find it rather pleasantly large compared to what they drive. Suits me fine and does the job nicely. I do get rubbed wrong when so many here (present company excepted) get all self rightous tho. Still waiting for the thread to degrade into a "why everyone should be vegetarian" debate;) Or maybe degrade via Goodwin's law.
And while you're snickering, he will probably get enough exercise and save enough money to come out about 50 times richer and healthier than you.
Yes, its much easier to do business lunches, take clients out to bars, and drive hundreds of miles to pitch them if you don't have a car. Very smart. I am sure a client would be happy to sign a $1 million contract with someone like that. The boss would also find it very lovely.
Why are you laughing again?
I'm laughing because I am guessing you still work at a part time job, and have no idea how it works in the corporate world.
Slashdot Mirror
ThIs meSsEGe iS TO warN YoU t Ha T YoU a Re in gr_E_at daNG3r
;)
Do you know how hard it is to cut and paste letters from different publications just to send a death threat via email? God, it would be take less time to just off you and not bother with the tags...
Sweet, now we'll be able to run Doom3 at highest detail in *SOFTWARE*-rendering mode!
So your saying this new computer has 1024 CPUs, but doesn't support Open GL?
dont forget one other important aspect of flash: its fairly easy to use, built libraries with, etc. I don't know if you have ever used it, but I bought MX a couple years back for some projects (than have since been switched to gif files) and found it very easy to build content with. From my experience, you can be very productive with it. Less time, more content. That is one reason people like publishing with it.
I'm sorry, sir, but the pencils are currently down. We have a tech coming out to replace the sharpeners tomorrow morning.
;)
That was actually pretty funny, and at least somewhat accurate. I personally find that being abusive, rude and cussing a lot speeds up the process since they don't want to deal with you. I mean, what are they going to do, cancel your account?
yea, i know it requires plugins, which is both good and bad. What gets me, is all the people spewing venom (not talking about your polite comment) about how flash sucks, and how it only supports 98% of all operating systems, blah blah blah, when it appears to me that if someone can install BSD, then they can probably install a dual boot system for all the other things they can't run. If they feel that anti MS, fine, then pirate a copy of 98 so they can REALLY screw MS. Not like its hard. I run about a dozen different OS's, so I know its not that damn hard.
The entire homestarrunner.com site is flash, and much of it is pretty good (especially if buzzed) if a bit amateurish in some ways. Great visuals, very good voice, mixed writing. Its worth installing flash on Linux/BSD/whatever, even if it takes a few extra steps.
If they didn't use flash, they couldn't do the stuff they do, active games, totally interactive menus, etc. with html, and god knows cross support for Java is screwed up thanks to MS.
Oh, I almost forgot, while slashdot is down, you should check out this homestarrunner "system is down" message.
Trust me.
I think it means we are the beta testers, and the goal is to make it LOOK and feel the same, just different mechanically.
Believe me, anytime something isn't working right, you can just grep through the comments and find all the complains and debugging information you can stand.
What about the people who don't log on until 9:05? Is this story going to help them ? ;)
People pirate SONGS because they dont want to pay $15-$20 to buy a CD with one or two songs that don't suck. Right or wrong, its why, at least for some of us.
Wife just bought the new Grechen Wilson CD. She says every song sucks, except the one she bought it for, Redneck Woman. Typical. $16.99 for one song.
We went to the beach last weekend, listening to some old CD, back when artists released ALBUMS instead of compilations. John Cougar/Uh huh, Eagles/Hotel California, etc. Artists used to make albums that had flow, where each song wasn't a hit but added to the whole thing, and was more than an afterthought. They just don't make them anymore, its all 1 or 2 singles, and a shit load of filler because people expect around 10 songs on a CD.
I still buy CDs of old music, but I personally don't buy a CD until I have downloaded it first. 99% of what I download gets trashed within the hour, not worth buying and not worth keeping for free.
I can't claim I'm any more correct than those studies. I can tell you that internet porn is so wide spread that it'd make one wonder why rape isn't more common place.
;) You can find any link you WANT to, if you look at it subjectively.
Because of the bias in the studies, which may or may not be intentional. If you structure the data correctly, you can show much of anything.
90% of all Americans eat beef.
90% of all people have stubbed their toe before.
Does eating beef make you stub your toe?
I can believe that the majority of rapists view porno, but that is far from saying it causes people to rape. Rape is a crime of violence, not a way for a guy to get sexual relief.
Its similar to the studies linking heart attacks and meat consumption. Well, it was OBVIOUS that beef causes heart attacks, right? But only in certain countries. Italy, for example, had high cholesterol consumption but low heart attacks. Years later, someone starting looking at SUGAR consumption and found a more powerful link. (Atkins) Neither is totally conclusive, but it shows the inaccuracy of any statics, at least most of the time
Its very easy, the confusion between men and women. Once women realize that men are incredibly simple creatures, and they should leave us alone, they can be happier. Its very simple:
Women want ONE man to fulfill her EVERY need.
Men want EVERY woman to fulfill his ONE need.
Its almost that simple, really. You want to impress a man? Show up naked, bring food, and don't block the TV. We really don't need much, but we can't stand being bitched at, or told our constant hornyness is wrong or bad. You leave us alone about dirty movies, lighten up a little, and we will do anything for you. Anything. Fortunately, my wife already knows this, which is one reason I married her.
To all the women here reading slashdot (both of you), please pass this on.
I always thought of it as Slashdot, where even trivial news from Groklaw gets repeated on a daily basis.
Actually, its been almost three weeks since slashdot posted an SCO story. Wired on McBride on June 26th. I don't think a story every 2 to 3 weeks is so bad, considering the potential ramifications.
Yes, it is an interference in the free market, but in the same way that laws against child labour are too.
This is an insane comparison. You can't compare a companies right to code their own website, to a company wanting to pay 10 year olds to work in a coal mine. This is a weak attempt to make a point where none exists.
As this is a commercial website based in the UK, the company has to respect the laws of this country.
Yes, and my point is: its a bad law.
ok, so by that reasoning, let's say i'm a shopkeeper who hates blacks and chinese. it's in my interest to let them into my shop, but i choose not to. and there should be no law to make me. yup, sounds great...
There is more than a fine line between blatant racism, and forcing companies to accomodate customers. This is just *looking* for an arguement, and it does not represent what I said, or what I believe. One is hate, the other is a respect for rights. You might disagree with my interpretation of rights, but why you would think I hate anyone is beyond me. If I hate anything, its government overreaching and stepping on small businesses.
And by the way, in many (if not most) US states, business owners have the right to refuse service, to anyone, for any reason, without explanation. They already *have* this right, and yes, I am sure it cuts both ways, and it is used for the wrong reasons as often as the right, such as the recent Denny's cases, where black customers were forced to prepay for food service after dark.
Again, this is not what I said or implied. This is your own imagination.
If you choose to incorporate, why the frell not? Society's giving you that liability limitation, the least the corporation can do is provide reasonable accomodations to all. Corporate status is not a god-given right.
Er, it is the USA. Anyone can form a corporation, without any limitation. You don't even have to incorporate here, or be a citizen. The government has no ability to NOT allow you to incorporate.
You see, that is exactly what I am talking about. I believe we have more rights, and the government is taking them AWAY with this type of regulation.
Apparently you have never been to europe... Outside of Switzerland, the governments of most European countries regulate everything they can think of. This is why there arent very many new businesses (And as such, much native economic growth). Too much paperwork, and too many rules.
I deal with European companies all the time, so I know exactly what you mean. My goal is to yell loud enough that America never has to face that kind of social and economic oppression. We looked into partnering a business with someone in Germany, until our CPA explained the taxes, and then we laughed our asses off, and will just focus on the US, thank you....
Too bad, it would have created several good paying jobs both in Germany and here in the states (also Romania and Hungary), but you don't invest half a million to pay 70% or more in taxes. I am shocked anyone opens a business there, considering the rewards are much lower than the risks.
THAT IS NOT THE POINT! (sorry, but everyone is missing the point here)
The point is that the Government should NOT be creating laws like this. Doesn't matter how wonderful, fair, helpful, etc. It is simply not the government's job to over regulate and FORCE a private company to do this. I don't care what the circumstances are, it is oppressive. The government should only do for us what we can not do for ourselves.
If you can't access the site, GO TO ANOTHER SITE. Give another theatre your money instead. Vote with your wallet. There is NO overwhelming Govt. interest to interfere here, because you have a choice.
No, but would it be so bad to require use of the ALT tag for images (especially images that are used as buttons) so that screen-reading software has something to work with?
Yes. Yes it would. Not because it is difficult, but because its NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS. It is an overreach of their authority. It is NOT the government's business to fscking nanny everyone.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I am here to help."
-- Ronald Reagan
a site like Odeon's could easily (reasonably) been written in a more cross-browser fashion that would have allowed screenreaders to access it. A flash-only site might be flash-only for a reason, thus making HTML-only not a reasonable accomodation, and thus not legally required.
I agree it is in their best interest to make the site accessible. Common business sense. I do not believe, however, that this is something the government should have the power to regulate. It is a private business. If they want to be stupid and make their site inaccessible, so be it. Choose another theatre chain, it is their loss.
In the event where you do NOT have a choice, such as courthouses, other govt. buildings, your utility companies, public transportation, etc., THEN there is an overwhelming Govt. interest in insuring you have access. I have no beef, and openly (and loudly) SUPPORT requiring equal and fair access.
Just my opinion. I personally think the government (any) tend to overreach common sense limits in a grab for power, all in the name of "protecting" someone or group.
The *REAL* problem now is not that some theatre chain makes their site inaccessible, its all the pre-existing courthouses that have been "grandfathered" while not affording others the same priveleges. This is "do as I say, not as I do" and yet another oppressive mechanism where those in power don't live up to the same standards they put on the rest of us.
I am sure you have been hearing about the case of the guy who refused to be carried up the courthouse stairs, and was arrested recently....
Lots of people are spouting lots of FUD here. Of course the site should be assessable. But the Disabilities Act does not require anyone except government agencies and a few other select public service entities to have assessable web sites.
So, is a theatre exempted (thus the story is bogus because they are not in violation) or are they not exempted, and fall into the catagory of "government agencies and a few other select public service entities"?
My point is simple: If its not a govt. agency or a legal monopoly, then the govt. should not regulate access to it. It is in the business owners best interests, but it should NOT be law. Period. It is an overreach of authority.
Well yes, their website *does* violate the DDA, but it's not in the hands of J Random Public to take matters into their own hands, there *are* proper channels for this.
;) The guy mirroring the site was in no way taking on this laws, rut rather a vigilante attempt to enforce it. I can't help but to get side tracked when the it appears the law is wrong. I worry more about Governments oppressing people with laws designed "to protect us" than I do about copycat sites. I'm funny that way.
yes yes, i agree, the guy is in the wrong. No arguement there.
A tangent, perhaps, but to me the law is a bigger concern than the violation of it.
I agree that you can't just use someone elses work because you want to, but there is another issue I am concerned with, this Disability Discrimination Act and how it is a violation to have a web site that isn't accessible to everyone.
I see the logic in making your site as accessible to everyone, and much logic in forcing certain buildings to be accessible to those with disabilities, particularly Government buildings. But this "Act" would seem to make it illegal to make a site that is all flash, or accessible to Opera only, etc. It seems that it is in the webmaster's best interest to allow the widest audience to use the site, but I don't see how it is any government business how a private company codes its website. Frankly, its no one's business if I want to code my own site to be inaccessible to anyone I want. Even Microsoft won't let you update Windows automatically without IE, which is their right.
This is a theatre chain, they should have the right to design their website as they see fit. Going online to view movie listings falls far short of the what any government should regulate. Should we pass a law that requires all websites (blogs, family home pages, theatres, slashdot, etc) to have every bit of text, including the html source, as audio, to make the site accessible to blind people?
If you're shmoozing clients in the corporate world, I'm not laughing. I'm pitying you. It sounds like a yucky way to live.
Let see, paid trips all over the US (just got back from Vegas, paid trip, didn't do any work), including meals and expenses, I have incredibly flexible hours, work from home often, run my own dept., take an average of 6 weeks vacation a year (not counting biz trips) and get paid well. Schmoozing clients is not such a bad price, especially since over half my clients are pretty cool guys and gals. I work hard 6 months a year, and take it very easy 6 months a year.
Maybe SOME people in the corporate world have sucky jobs, but I am pretty lucky. The "suck to cool" ratio in my job is quite nice. Then again, when the shit hits the fan, I'm the "Go To Guy". Still, an easy price to pay, considering all the benefits.
someone sounds bitter.
;) Or maybe degrade via Goodwin's law.
naw, not at all. If it sounded that way, it was purely accidental. I like my job, lots of freedom. But the point was that not everyone can do without a car, nor would we want to. I am not saying you are being this way, but there are lots of people who live next to work, and get self rightous about other driving. They forget that many people live in middle usa where work may be many miles away and there is no public transport.
But no, I love my truck, chevy 2500hd extended. Less than 5000 miles on it, almost 14 miles to the gallon, and the Europeans that visit often find it rather pleasantly large compared to what they drive. Suits me fine and does the job nicely. I do get rubbed wrong when so many here (present company excepted) get all self rightous tho. Still waiting for the thread to degrade into a "why everyone should be vegetarian" debate
And while you're snickering, he will probably get enough exercise and save enough money to come out about 50 times richer and healthier than you.
Yes, its much easier to do business lunches, take clients out to bars, and drive hundreds of miles to pitch them if you don't have a car. Very smart. I am sure a client would be happy to sign a $1 million contract with someone like that. The boss would also find it very lovely.
Why are you laughing again?
I'm laughing because I am guessing you still work at a part time job, and have no idea how it works in the corporate world.