You are missing the point. There are no checks and balances here. President Bush could point the finger at you tomorrow, leak the right accusations to the media, and you'd be in the cell next to him the day after. Without any oversight, without any chance for you to answer the charges, and no opportunity for anyone to say "Hold on, you've got the wrong man". Doesn't that worry you? Not even slightly?
[From Dictionary.com] Subject, n. 1. One who is under the rule of another or others, especially one who owes allegiance to a government or ruler.
So it would seem that you do. All American citizens are also American subjects. A British citizen is also a British subject, but there are also those subject to British allegiance who are non-citizens, principally colonials, and they have no right to live, work, or stand for election in the UK (oddly, like all Commonwealth citizens they do have the right to vote if they happen to be in the UK at the time, about 1/3 of the world's population can theoretically vote in a UK General Election).
Stay positive. Smile and say why it didn't work out. Make it about you and not about the company. Say why you felt it wasn't the right position for you. E.g. say you weren't getting the career or technical progression that you hoped for (i.e. about you) rather than they lied about your prospects (i.e. about them). You can be honest, just spin it the right way.
Attitude is one of the main things you will be selected on, show that yours is a positive one.
Re:i interviewed
on
Defining Google
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I answered in a bitter way as i'd been let down by most of my managers/directors/leaders at all palces i've worked for previously. (not too too important, but I view it as a demerit)
I'm a technical manager that has recruited contractors and permanent staff. I have ruled out otherwise excellent candidates because they have bad-mouthed their previous employers. Don't do it.
NO! back at you. Living in freedom means where your rights are upheld. It follows therefore, that actions infringing those rights are restricted.
Take the focus off the individual, the idea is to maximize the amount of freedom as a whole. Failed states with no functioning authorities and no upheld rights meet your definition of "perfectly free", but nobody seriously considers them free societies.
For example, a free society is one that does not permit you to own slaves. Your individual actions are restricted, but the overall level of freedom goes up. You are also free from the risk and fear of living in slavery. You are more free as a result.
Similarly BSD vs GNU. BSD focuses maximum freedom on the individual. GNU on the other hand tries to spread the freedom as far as possible. Each individual gets a little less, but freedom as a whole goes up much further.
Oh, but nobody complains about FREE HANDOUTS from the US, do they? What's up with THAT?
Don't go patting yourself on the back too hard, here's some facts for you: 1) The US is the stingiest foreign aid donor of all the rich-world countries, managing only 0.1% GDP. The EU contributes 3 times as much.
2) The biggest recipient of US foreign aid is Israel to the tune of about $9 billion per year. Net result: 350 million pissed-off muslims all around the world. I'm not going to take a position on the Israel/Palestine thing here, but if you want win hearts and minds this probably isn't the way to do it.
As for letting them starve, the poor world is mostly kept poor by the tariffs and subsidies on agricultural products by the US and EU. This denies the poor countries an opportunity to earn their living at something they are good at, namely growing stuff, and if the political will existed to deal with it, it would be worth many times more than the entire rich world's aid budget combined.
You can't expect people to be grateful for tiny handouts when you are simultaneously denying them the chance to earn their own living.
something like KDE is in a way part of that operating system itself
The desktop is a userland application, there is absolutely no need for it to be part of the OS. MS integrated them for Windows 95, but that was just the usual MS, monopoly-leveraging move.
Base it on the price of Gold and you only need to worry about the fluctuation of your own economy
You also need to worry about the price of gold, which has performed appallingly in recent years, far worse than the dollar, in fact the worst performance of any financial asset over the last decade. Mining is becoming more efficient, governments are selling off their big reserves, and the world's stock of gold never diminshes, so it's only going to get worse for years to come.
Personally, I would not be interested in investing in a gold-backed currency.
Today money is backed by the full faith and credit of the US (or whatever country you happen to live in) Government. Without anything of real value behind the money it has value simply because people belive it to have value.
This true. Cash is a measure of confidence in the issuing government. Money, the entire international financial system, in fact, is essentially a big confidence trick. Why do you imagine that to be problem?
Actually the Roman Law originated in the Roman Republic more a thousand years before the important update provided by Justinian. The Law of Twelve Tables was established in Rome 449 BC. These were 12 wooden tables explaining the law displayed to the citizens in the Forum. Before that the laws were kept secret(!), citizens were actually subject to the law without knowing what it was.
any studies find out what the extra deaths are from?
Handedness studies aren't well funded, and the existing data is far from clear cut. There are basically two ways of approaching it (i) left-handness is the cause, (ii) left-handedness is an effect.
According to the first theory left-handedness directly leads to reduced life-span. The problems of a lefty co-ordinating themselves in a right-handed industrial society ought to be obvious. There are also possible factors such as the "flinch response". It seems that when we flinch at a threat, we turn in a consistent, handedness-determined direction. This might be a problem during a road traffic accident when all the righties swerve in one direction, and the lefties are busily turning into the path of an oncoming rightie.
In the second theory left-handedness is a secondary effect of something else that reduces lifespan. It is commonly associated with brain problems such as autism, epilepsy, and so on, but not excessively so. It is also well known that certain kinds of brain injury can lead to a change of handedness. According to this theory about half of lefties are "natural" lefties with normal lifespans, the other half are actually natural righties that switched, either in the womb or early childhood, due to their other problems. In this scenario left-handedness is simply a marker for other life-shortening factors.
There could be a bit of truth in them both, of course.
That has been suggested, but the evidence doesn't back it up. e.g. when school children are forced to write right-handed they do not become generally right-handed, they become lefties that do just one right-handed task well. Even the earliest handedness studies were smart enough to make the distinction. I'm about 80% left-handed, if I learned to write with my right hand, I would still be about 70% left-handed. Also, handedness studies from around 1900 onwards all show the same profile, and not falling as you'd expect.
There are clear disadvantages to being left-handed, in the life expectancy stakes us lefties hold our own until we reach about 33, then it swing decisely against us, with only 1 in 200 80 year-olds being lefties.
Evolution ruthlessly selects against even slightly disadvantageous genes, those that incur an apparently small 1% reduction in offspring quickly dwindle down to nothing when you repeat that over 20 or 30 generations. Genetically inflicted conditions usually have some kind of balancing factor that keeps them in the gene-pool, e.g. sickle-cell gene seems to protect against malaria, which gave it a role in West Africa, but it is already be edged out of the US gene-pool where it is no longer required.
Re:What day of the week is it?
on
Sun-isms Debunked
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Yeah, linux is so much easier to use than Solaris
Well once you've got around to installing the GNU tools onto Solaris, it's every bit as usuable as Linux.
As a father of 2 small children, I find it hard to believe that more beer would translate into a need for more need for diapers, or vice-versa. Unless I'm either giving the beer to the kids, or wearing the diapers myself it's hard to see any correlation here.
Googling on "beer diaper urban legend" returns about 3,000 hits. It looks to me like the story is probably a myth.
Seriously. OK, so a few species will go extinct. But who's to say that some species won't flourish as a result. The ecosystem will be different, but it won't necessarily be worse. The ecosystem will adapt.
The ecosystem will adapt, it always has, some species will be losers, some will be winners. The question is: which will homo sapiens be, a winner or a loser? The losers tend to be those at the top of the pile when it was kicked over (i.e. us), the winners tend to be little things living at the bottom of the food chain. The Permian-Triassic extinction event wiped out 70% of all land species and 95% of all marine ones. For some time after the dominant form of life was fungus. I don't know about you, but I'm happy reading about that in a book, I don't particularly feel the urge to experience an "adjusting" ecosystem at first hand.
Slashdot Mirror
You are missing the point. There are no checks and balances here. President Bush could point the finger at you tomorrow, leak the right accusations to the media, and you'd be in the cell next to him the day after. Without any oversight, without any chance for you to answer the charges, and no opportunity for anyone to say "Hold on, you've got the wrong man". Doesn't that worry you? Not even slightly?
That and we don't have to be subjects.
[From Dictionary.com]
Subject, n.
1. One who is under the rule of another or others, especially one who owes allegiance to a government or ruler.
So it would seem that you do. All American citizens are also American subjects. A British citizen is also a British subject, but there are also those subject to British allegiance who are non-citizens, principally colonials, and they have no right to live, work, or stand for election in the UK (oddly, like all Commonwealth citizens they do have the right to vote if they happen to be in the UK at the time, about 1/3 of the world's population can theoretically vote in a UK General Election).
that should be http://www.chargepadilla.org/
Jose Padilla is not in Guantanamo Bay, he's in a naval brig in South Carolina.
Stay positive. Smile and say why it didn't work out. Make it about you and not about the company. Say why you felt it wasn't the right position for you. E.g. say you weren't getting the career or technical progression that you hoped for (i.e. about you) rather than they lied about your prospects (i.e. about them). You can be honest, just spin it the right way.
Attitude is one of the main things you will be selected on, show that yours is a positive one.
I answered in a bitter way as i'd been let down by most of my managers/directors/leaders at all palces i've worked for previously. (not too too important, but I view it as a demerit)
I'm a technical manager that has recruited contractors and permanent staff. I have ruled out otherwise excellent candidates because they have bad-mouthed their previous employers. Don't do it.
What if the little guy has no money for lawyers and decides to represent himself? How does a corporation represent itself?
NO! back at you. Living in freedom means where your rights are upheld. It follows therefore, that actions infringing those rights are restricted.
Take the focus off the individual, the idea is to maximize the amount of freedom as a whole. Failed states with no functioning authorities and no upheld rights meet your definition of "perfectly free", but nobody seriously considers them free societies.
For example, a free society is one that does not permit you to own slaves. Your individual actions are restricted, but the overall level of freedom goes up. You are also free from the risk and fear of living in slavery. You are more free as a result.
Similarly BSD vs GNU. BSD focuses maximum freedom on the individual. GNU on the other hand tries to spread the freedom as far as possible. Each individual gets a little less, but freedom as a whole goes up much further.
Second try
Here you go:d =1034243
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_i
Oh, but nobody complains about FREE HANDOUTS from the US, do they? What's up with THAT?
Don't go patting yourself on the back too hard, here's some facts for you:
1) The US is the stingiest foreign aid donor of all the rich-world countries, managing only 0.1% GDP. The EU contributes 3 times as much.
2) The biggest recipient of US foreign aid is Israel to the tune of about $9 billion per year. Net result: 350 million pissed-off muslims all around the world. I'm not going to take a position on the Israel/Palestine thing here, but if you want win hearts and minds this probably isn't the way to do it.
As for letting them starve, the poor world is mostly kept poor by the tariffs and subsidies on agricultural products by the US and EU. This denies the poor countries an opportunity to earn their living at something they are good at, namely growing stuff, and if the political will existed to deal with it, it would be worth many times more than the entire rich world's aid budget combined.
You can't expect people to be grateful for tiny handouts when you are simultaneously denying them the chance to earn their own living.
OK I have. Gold is still the worst performing.
something like KDE is in a way part of that operating system itself
The desktop is a userland application, there is absolutely no need for it to be part of the OS. MS integrated them for Windows 95, but that was just the usual MS, monopoly-leveraging move.
Base it on the price of Gold and you only need to worry about the fluctuation of your own economy
You also need to worry about the price of gold, which has performed appallingly in recent years, far worse than the dollar, in fact the worst performance of any financial asset over the last decade. Mining is becoming more efficient, governments are selling off their big reserves, and the world's stock of gold never diminshes, so it's only going to get worse for years to come.
Personally, I would not be interested in investing in a gold-backed currency.
Today money is backed by the full faith and credit of the US (or whatever country you happen to live in) Government. Without anything of real value behind the money it has value simply because people belive it to have value.
This true. Cash is a measure of confidence in the issuing government. Money, the entire international financial system, in fact, is essentially a big confidence trick. Why do you imagine that to be problem?
Actually the Roman Law originated in the Roman Republic more a thousand years before the important update provided by Justinian. The Law of Twelve Tables was established in Rome 449 BC. These were 12 wooden tables explaining the law displayed to the citizens in the Forum. Before that the laws were kept secret(!), citizens were actually subject to the law without knowing what it was.
Destroying the global economy? gimme a break. Now who's scaremongering?
any studies find out what the extra deaths are from?
Handedness studies aren't well funded, and the existing data is far from clear cut. There are basically two ways of approaching it (i) left-handness is the cause, (ii) left-handedness is an effect.
According to the first theory left-handedness directly leads to reduced life-span. The problems of a lefty co-ordinating themselves in a right-handed industrial society ought to be obvious. There are also possible factors such as the "flinch response". It seems that when we flinch at a threat, we turn in a consistent, handedness-determined direction. This might be a problem during a road traffic accident when all the righties swerve in one direction, and the lefties are busily turning into the path of an oncoming rightie.
In the second theory left-handedness is a secondary effect of something else that reduces lifespan. It is commonly associated with brain problems such as autism, epilepsy, and so on, but not excessively so. It is also well known that certain kinds of brain injury can lead to a change of handedness. According to this theory about half of lefties are "natural" lefties with normal lifespans, the other half are actually natural righties that switched, either in the womb or early childhood, due to their other problems. In this scenario left-handedness is simply a marker for other life-shortening factors.
There could be a bit of truth in them both, of course.
I'm sure someone will figure this out, too, I'm just waiting for the day they increase insurance premiums for us lefties.
That has been suggested, but the evidence doesn't back it up. e.g. when school children are forced to write right-handed they do not become generally right-handed, they become lefties that do just one right-handed task well. Even the earliest handedness studies were smart enough to make the distinction. I'm about 80% left-handed, if I learned to write with my right hand, I would still be about 70% left-handed. Also, handedness studies from around 1900 onwards all show the same profile, and not falling as you'd expect.
There are clear disadvantages to being left-handed, in the life expectancy stakes us lefties hold our own until we reach about 33, then it swing decisely against us, with only 1 in 200 80 year-olds being lefties.
Evolution ruthlessly selects against even slightly disadvantageous genes, those that incur an apparently small 1% reduction in offspring quickly dwindle down to nothing when you repeat that over 20 or 30 generations. Genetically inflicted conditions usually have some kind of balancing factor that keeps them in the gene-pool, e.g. sickle-cell gene seems to protect against malaria, which gave it a role in West Africa, but it is already be edged out of the US gene-pool where it is no longer required.
Yeah, linux is so much easier to use than Solaris
Well once you've got around to installing the GNU tools onto Solaris, it's every bit as usuable as Linux.
As a father of 2 small children, I find it hard to believe that more beer would translate into a need for more need for diapers, or vice-versa. Unless I'm either giving the beer to the kids, or wearing the diapers myself it's hard to see any correlation here.
Googling on "beer diaper urban legend" returns about 3,000 hits. It looks to me like the story is probably a myth.
Seriously. OK, so a few species will go extinct. But who's to say that some species won't flourish as a result. The ecosystem will be different, but it won't necessarily be worse. The ecosystem will adapt.
The ecosystem will adapt, it always has, some species will be losers, some will be winners. The question is: which will homo sapiens be, a winner or a loser? The losers tend to be those at the top of the pile when it was kicked over (i.e. us), the winners tend to be little things living at the bottom of the food chain. The Permian-Triassic extinction event wiped out 70% of all land species and 95% of all marine ones. For some time after the dominant form of life was fungus. I don't know about you, but I'm happy reading about that in a book, I don't particularly feel the urge to experience an "adjusting" ecosystem at first hand.
GC3 Article 4 defines individuals it covers:
4A(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces