These overseas folks are here principally because of a lack of skilled US citizens in critical areas.
Says who, the companies who claim there is a shortage in a market that fairly clearly shows that no such thing is occurring?
perhaps we should have better funded engineering education programs and engineering-related incentives for prospective college students
Why should everyone else have to spend their time and money on your problem? Maybe the companies crying about this should have set up some medium-turnover entry level positions so that they'd be able to promote their talent from within and kick the low-quality employees to the next job?
I've never understood the sense of entitlement some have... says the person who apparently thinks companies are entitled to cheap labor with the burden of training placed on anyone but themselves.
The original law was overturned by the Supreme Court for that reason. It's since been passed again with the usual Miller "do it first and then we'll decide whether or not to ruin your life forever, but this isn't at all prior restraint" Test clause to cover cases with "literary merit".
There is really no good reason to preemptively freeze the checks. It can damage your ability to get a new job as well as a new loan.
Then the employer should say "uh, hey, uh... I need to run a credit check on you" and the person will either release the freeze or tell the employer to find someone else. Likewise, if the loan company wants your business, they'll probably even send you a nice letter with the phone number to call and all.
In most cases it is limited to $50 or so if it is reported in a timely manner.
That's your credit card, we're talking about your credit itself, which most certainly is not "limited to $50" when someone else uses your credit to buy a house.
Step 1) Go to your bank's website. Step 2) Look for the pretty little lock picture in your browser that tells you that the website is SSL encrypted.
Without the lock, there is no guarantee you're even on your bank's website when you click the login button that takes you to who knows where. ESPECIALLY when the bank helpfully puts a username/password form on the front page (see http://www.wamu.com/ ) for you to fill out and hit submit and hope that the page it's submitting to actually IS encrypted.
It's a rather fascinating take too. What we need to do is publish the executives and lawyers personal information along with SSNs and credit card numbers publicly, after all, it's the truth and therefore free speech!
Tort reform would go a long way towards lowering prices.
Tort reform passed in Texas, and while there is a huge line of doctors waiting to get in, there hasn't been a single sign that healthcare will get cheaper, largely because it's the insurance companies that set the rates. The "free marketeers" love to point to how any doctor treating medicare patients can be arrested for providing medical care at a rate less than what they charge the government, but while the government can back their threats up with a few months in the pen, if you charge someone less than you're charging Aetna, they'll just sue you for fraud then take away your patients, and no, your malpractice insurance doesn't cover it.
If we want to fix things without just getting rid of the damned insurance companies and being done with it (because then, everyone would choose a doctor based on price/performance rather than "is this covered?" and the magical hand will do its thang) then if we at least do away with corporation-bought health plans, we would at least have competition at the insurance plan level, and people would not be tied to a particular employer for fear of losing coverage. Nor is the company penalized for hiring people that might be a risk (and pushing up their insurance costs). With competitive health plans, plans would have to compete for patients based on price/available doctors, doing so based on providing the best return to doctors who choose to see the patients on their plan.
Eventually some other insurance company will probably pick up the pace
And if they don't, what then? Making the claim that someone will do X in a system that demands rational choices requries that you lay out why doing X is rational, in which case you then have to explain why everyone else is not doing X despite the fact that it is apparently rational.
Personally, I'm suprised the anti-abortionist senator had any complaints with this, after all, what does he think people are going to do if it becomes cheaper to just kill people in the womb rather than paying for medical care?
So's the theory that just because a person confessed to a lot of crimes at once, that it somehow must have been the whole of his sins. It's hard to test whether this theory pans out in reality, since whenever a serial rapist or murderer goes on the block, the prosecutors generally try to stick every open case in the book on them in order to clear out their backlog, whether the person actually committed the crime or not. Of those, I wonder how many were murderers who confessed to the murders of the 5 bodies in their basement in hopes of keeping the investigators from finding the other 20 corpses in the lime pit out back?
an obsession or anger on Sturgeon's part
So this Sturgeon guy tries to steal Hans Reiser's wife, tries to seize his company, tries to take his money, and just keeps coming back for more? Yeah, he can't possibly be obsessed or angry, obviously Reiser must have had a "harass me repeatedly" sign taped to his back.
Common sense says if Sturgeon is going to spontaneously admit to 8 (possibly 9) murders, he'll probably admit to a 10th if it exists.
It also says that if I wanted to frame some guy who I hate because I failed to steal his wife from him, I'd confess to everything but killing the woman, so that the cops will think exactly what you thought. So far in this case it seems the cops have been easy suckers, so it just might work.
The difference is our laws say. Someone decided to Think Of The Children and passed specific laws to prevent cybersex with a kid, which is a different law from having sex with a kid. If someone passes a law against virtual rape, then virtual rape will be illegal. In the absence of such a law, attempting to make it illegal using a law against real-world rape should fail, and the issue should strictly be handled under existing online harassment laws.
Actions have multiple consequences, so why can't they have multiple causes?
Inconceivable! If that were the case, then how could we continue to blame videogames for violence, blame WMD's for the invasion on Iraq, and incompetence for that which could be ascribed to malice?!
Actually, that's a great idea. Who needs the MSNBC debate anyway? Set up a separate parallel debate, bring in the third parties, and let the third parties have a go at similar questions, only this debate will be recorded in its entirety and allowed to be freely distributable on the internet. With enough hype, I think even the first parties will want to appear.
Now all we need are some navy ships to block the intarweb ports and keep them pirates out of the tubes to make sure our debates are the only ones online. After all, copyright infringement is a terrible, terrible crime.
After Grandia II, there was Grandia Xtreme for the PS2 (which was a plotless dungeon crawler with only slightly more story than Nethack, the comments here sum it up very nicely), and then towards the end of 2006 Grandia III was released here. I haven't tried Grandia III yet, maybe when I can pick it up cheap used, I'll get it just for the battle system.
and most distros are going to include a kernel with the kitchen sink compiled in.
Actually, they use kernels with everything compiled as modules, and a separate initrd/initramfs to deal with loading the drivers required at boot time.
Or finding a new market, say by selling your service to your subscribers instead of advertisers. Especially if your content is teaching people to see through the crap in ads, which advertisers are obviously not buying.
Slashdot Mirror
These overseas folks are here principally because of a lack of skilled US citizens in critical areas.
... says the person who apparently thinks companies are entitled to cheap labor with the burden of training placed on anyone but themselves.
Says who, the companies who claim there is a shortage in a market that fairly clearly shows that no such thing is occurring?
perhaps we should have better funded engineering education programs and engineering-related incentives for prospective college students
Why should everyone else have to spend their time and money on your problem? Maybe the companies crying about this should have set up some medium-turnover entry level positions so that they'd be able to promote their talent from within and kick the low-quality employees to the next job?
I've never understood the sense of entitlement some have
Does that make American Pie kiddie porn?
The original law was overturned by the Supreme Court for that reason. It's since been passed again with the usual Miller "do it first and then we'll decide whether or not to ruin your life forever, but this isn't at all prior restraint" Test clause to cover cases with "literary merit".
There is really no good reason to preemptively freeze the checks. It can damage your ability to get a new job as well as a new loan.
Then the employer should say "uh, hey, uh... I need to run a credit check on you" and the person will either release the freeze or tell the employer to find someone else. Likewise, if the loan company wants your business, they'll probably even send you a nice letter with the phone number to call and all.
In most cases it is limited to $50 or so if it is reported in a timely manner.
That's your credit card, we're talking about your credit itself, which most certainly is not "limited to $50" when someone else uses your credit to buy a house.
If you aren't buying a house, car, or a new credit card, you should preemptively freeze your credit and leave it that way.
Step 1) Go to your bank's website.
Step 2) Look for the pretty little lock picture in your browser that tells you that the website is SSL encrypted.
Without the lock, there is no guarantee you're even on your bank's website when you click the login button that takes you to who knows where. ESPECIALLY when the bank helpfully puts a username/password form on the front page (see http://www.wamu.com/ ) for you to fill out and hit submit and hope that the page it's submitting to actually IS encrypted.
USAA's site is all https and provides an immediate redirect if you type http://www.usaa.com/ for example.
Right this second, Washington Mutual's site https://www.wamu.com/ does the exact opposite, it redirects me back to http:///
It annoys me, but not enough to withdraw my cash. I just hit log in with the fields blank to get to the SSL page and then actually log in.
It's a rather fascinating take too. What we need to do is publish the executives and lawyers personal information along with SSNs and credit card numbers publicly, after all, it's the truth and therefore free speech!
Call it the Library of Progress, and refer to JEFFERSON.
Which means healthy you gets to pay more because it's illegal to conclusively know how healthy the others in your insurance pool are.
Which is exactly how things are now.
that means the average price goes up.
You mean they needed an excuse to raise prices? That's news to me.
Tort reform would go a long way towards lowering prices.
Tort reform passed in Texas, and while there is a huge line of doctors waiting to get in, there hasn't been a single sign that healthcare will get cheaper, largely because it's the insurance companies that set the rates. The "free marketeers" love to point to how any doctor treating medicare patients can be arrested for providing medical care at a rate less than what they charge the government, but while the government can back their threats up with a few months in the pen, if you charge someone less than you're charging Aetna, they'll just sue you for fraud then take away your patients, and no, your malpractice insurance doesn't cover it.
If we want to fix things without just getting rid of the damned insurance companies and being done with it (because then, everyone would choose a doctor based on price/performance rather than "is this covered?" and the magical hand will do its thang) then if we at least do away with corporation-bought health plans, we would at least have competition at the insurance plan level, and people would not be tied to a particular employer for fear of losing coverage. Nor is the company penalized for hiring people that might be a risk (and pushing up their insurance costs). With competitive health plans, plans would have to compete for patients based on price/available doctors, doing so based on providing the best return to doctors who choose to see the patients on their plan.
Shouldn't they be in the other order?
In this case he was fired due to the comment, then investigated due to the comic he wrote about being fired over a comment.
Eventually some other insurance company will probably pick up the pace
And if they don't, what then? Making the claim that someone will do X in a system that demands rational choices requries that you lay out why doing X is rational, in which case you then have to explain why everyone else is not doing X despite the fact that it is apparently rational.
Personally, I'm suprised the anti-abortionist senator had any complaints with this, after all, what does he think people are going to do if it becomes cheaper to just kill people in the womb rather than paying for medical care?
You and I are both now in a database somewhere.
;)
The database of people who will never be called for jury duty
what the government should do if it wants to protect phone companies from such lawsuits
Naturally, the idea that maybe they shouldn't illegally demand customer information without a warrant never enters the picture.
President can issue pardons
It's also been ruled that accepting a pardon is a declaration of guilt, meaning that the pardon doesn't change the status of the crime.
Sure that's a nice alternate theory.
So's the theory that just because a person confessed to a lot of crimes at once, that it somehow must have been the whole of his sins. It's hard to test whether this theory pans out in reality, since whenever a serial rapist or murderer goes on the block, the prosecutors generally try to stick every open case in the book on them in order to clear out their backlog, whether the person actually committed the crime or not. Of those, I wonder how many were murderers who confessed to the murders of the 5 bodies in their basement in hopes of keeping the investigators from finding the other 20 corpses in the lime pit out back?
an obsession or anger on Sturgeon's part
So this Sturgeon guy tries to steal Hans Reiser's wife, tries to seize his company, tries to take his money, and just keeps coming back for more? Yeah, he can't possibly be obsessed or angry, obviously Reiser must have had a "harass me repeatedly" sign taped to his back.
Common sense says if Sturgeon is going to spontaneously admit to 8 (possibly 9) murders, he'll probably admit to a 10th if it exists.
It also says that if I wanted to frame some guy who I hate because I failed to steal his wife from him, I'd confess to everything but killing the woman, so that the cops will think exactly what you thought. So far in this case it seems the cops have been easy suckers, so it just might work.
The difference is our laws say. Someone decided to Think Of The Children and passed specific laws to prevent cybersex with a kid, which is a different law from having sex with a kid. If someone passes a law against virtual rape, then virtual rape will be illegal. In the absence of such a law, attempting to make it illegal using a law against real-world rape should fail, and the issue should strictly be handled under existing online harassment laws.
Actions have multiple consequences, so why can't they have multiple causes?
Inconceivable! If that were the case, then how could we continue to blame videogames for violence, blame WMD's for the invasion on Iraq, and incompetence for that which could be ascribed to malice?!
non-terminal conditions
;)
Now THERE is an amusing choice of words for this thread
this is called an "embargo"
Actually, that's a great idea. Who needs the MSNBC debate anyway? Set up a separate parallel debate, bring in the third parties, and let the third parties have a go at similar questions, only this debate will be recorded in its entirety and allowed to be freely distributable on the internet. With enough hype, I think even the first parties will want to appear.
Now all we need are some navy ships to block the intarweb ports and keep them pirates out of the tubes to make sure our debates are the only ones online. After all, copyright infringement is a terrible, terrible crime.
After Grandia II, there was Grandia Xtreme for the PS2 (which was a plotless dungeon crawler with only slightly more story than Nethack, the comments here sum it up very nicely), and then towards the end of 2006 Grandia III was released here. I haven't tried Grandia III yet, maybe when I can pick it up cheap used, I'll get it just for the battle system.
the risks of relying on hosted applications providers
And of course, a desktop application would NEVER have a bug that caused you to lose information or settings.
and most distros are going to include a kernel with the kitchen sink compiled in.
Actually, they use kernels with everything compiled as modules, and a separate initrd/initramfs to deal with loading the drivers required at boot time.
I'd suggest producing a new service
Or finding a new market, say by selling your service to your subscribers instead of advertisers. Especially if your content is teaching people to see through the crap in ads, which advertisers are obviously not buying.