They certainly dont do so regularly if they wish to remain employees. What we have here, I think, is a difference in opinion of what amount of slack is acceptable.
well they are flat out idiots and i am willing to bet, have extremely high turn over rates.
My department staff (about 8) range from 8 years to as recent as 6 months ago. Most have been with us for over 4 years. For a department that picked up most of it's staff 4 years ago, I think we're doing well. BTW, the 6 month hire was an add-on. We needed addtional staff -- our company is still growing.
Those no down time employees, usually burn out and come back with an AR15
Who said "no downtime"? Clearly, "down time" is mandated by California Law. If you NEED more down time than 15 minutes every 2 hours, (more than 10% of your time spent in "down time"), then I think the problem is clearly with you and I certainly wouldn't consider you for hire -- or if you somehow passed through, I wouldn't keep you past probation.
That may be how your brain works -- and you may have found a career and employer that allows it, but I think that's the exception rather than the rule.
I'm fairly certain I could find someone who can be as productive as you when you are working -- the entire day (sans scheduled breaks) with your skill set who doesn't find it necessary to spend 10 mins playing a flash game to let something "sink in". Unless your flash playing/sink-in time and 5 some odd/. reads a day are during regular breaks...
I'm not trying to attack you. It's just been my experience that there are plenty of people out there who DON'T require thinking "down time", who are exceptionally productive and more often than not, less troublesome employees. What you are describing sounds to me to be stress coping rather than thought processing -- which, as management -- suggests to me you have poor stress coping skills or are more prone work poorly under work-related pressure.
"We don't take requests from department managers".
At our shop, requests for such information come from the HR director or the General Manager and only those people. And such information is provided to them and them alone. Such rules make our lives easier. HR and/or the GM workout what to do with the department head -- solutions which may involve IT or not.
Such requests are rare now. They are usually handled by the supervisor alone now without need of escalation.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying that every republican is a hypocrite. Indeed, that would be a logical fallacy.
Oh good. I'm sorry I misunderstood you.
What I'm saying is that time after time, high-profile republicans, which run on a platforms of traditional values, have repeatedly demonstrated that, privately, such values aren't important to them at all. This should cast doubt upon the party's position that it is a beacon of morality in American politics
didn't ask for a definition of ideology in general or how it can affect one's perception. This response did not answer my questions. Unless you can--even in general terms--define what my ideology is, how can you make the claim that it's "blinding" my judgement?
Of course it didn't answer your question. Your question was based on a misunderstading of the word and my usage of it -- your question was irrelevant to what we were talking about. I had attempted to clear up your understanding of the word and how I used it, but obviously I have failed -- or you just refuse to believe that you can have some hard-coded beliefs that might block your ability to think critically or fairly sometimes. The fact is -- IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THOSE BELIEFS ARE if they impair your ability to think critically.
You provide a perfect example:
And if the democrats had run on an anti-bribery platform to the same extent that republicans have run on under "traditional values," then I would say that they were opening themselves up to the label of hypocrites as well.
This is a complete and utter fallacy. It's guilt by association. So what if you have TEAM A saying they support Y? Then it turns out a MEMBER of team A did something AGAINST "Y"... According to your faulty logic, ALL of team were "open for the label of hypocrits". This is an astounding position to take and a classic example of guilt by association fallacy. Why you refuse to accept this is beyond belief -- unless we condlude that you suffer from some ideology induced selective blindness.
National Briefing | West: California: Support For Condit Challenger Sens Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein will support Assemblyman Dennis Cardoza, one of several Democrats, in California primary for candidate to run against incumbent Republican Repr Gary Condit for House seat
But since you've resorted to sematics, then you tell me: What ideology am I subscribing to and how am I being blinded by it?
Last I checked there aren't a "list" of ideologies with little check boxes by them from which you can choose. You've a set of world views -- your ideology -- which you are allowing to cloud your critical thinking abilities. "Ideology" is an abstraction -- not a finite list of "things".
But it's not... Again, the republicans call themselves the "Moral Majority" and are the primary backers of anti-paedophile laws. They've profited greatly by doing this, but have opened themselves up to this brand of criticism in doing so.
But it is. So... Because William Jefferson (D) takes bribes and undermines the rule of law, all democrats are therefor targets for some whacked out 'guilt by association' games? And this makes logical sense to you?
I am absolutely serious and I take offense to your tone. Your little act is meant to imply that my position is ludicrous, beyond belief and could only be held by someone with little or no reasoning or critical thinking skills.
You are correct! Give that poster a kewpie doll!
The amount of assumptions one needs to make to take your position *IS*, as you say: "ludicrous, beyond belief and could only be held by someone with little or no reasoning or critical thinking skills." Thank you for that fine loquacious summary.
Please, try to provide any piece of evidence from the real world that Fox would not do that.
I feel that anyone who takes Fox News seriously is a serious nutter and not to be taken seriously themselves. Try reading more about Fox News' past lies.
Wow. A link to a google search of "fox news lies". That's all the proof we need? Ok. Then I guess your position is a load of cricket poop put out by the left wing whackos who are controlled by the girly magazines who are a secret underground spy agency working under the direct control of Karl Rove
There's no point in being rude. Besdies, even in your personal attack, you are incorrect. I am not a democrat or supporter of the democratic party. Read my post history [slashdot.org] if you don't believe me.
I never claimed you were a democrat... or anything other than being blinde by your ideology. Ideology does not mean democrat.
Have you been under a rock for the past week or something? It's all over the damn news that the republican leadership is suspected to be involved. I couldn't make this up if I tried.
You say "suspected" here. Yet before, you said: "However, much of the controversy involves the Republican leadership covering up and even allowing more (!) young pages to serve under him after they knew about the first incidents" -- which is a statement of fact. Sad you dont see the difference. It's also sad that those whailing these "suspicious" are the democrats. It would be just as crackers to say the LEFT knew about this and hung on to it until Octorber to best impact against the RIGHT -- allowing this wanker to diddle boys virtually.
Also, you should click on the link you provided... And actually read the stories. Trust me... I'm not living under a rock. Nor do I get my news in "sound-bite" headlines.
So, on the eve of one of the most contested congressional elections to occur in decades, you don't think that his party affiliation is even relevant?
Yes, that is correct. I do not. And his JOB as a legislator is only relevant to his constituents. He did the right thing and resigned. The authorities are doing their investigations.
Seriously. The republicans are not alone in page-related sex scandals. Nor this a problem with the HoR alone. It is a PARTY NEUTRAL issue.
Only someone blinded by their own ideology would believe that Fox News would not do this purposefully.
Good lord, you're kidding, right? Seriously, you're pulling my leg, right?
I'll quote another user from this thread who stated quite well the blinders those who think like you must be wearing:
The number of assumptions you make is astounding. What you're claiming is that Fox News was trying to convince the world that Foley was a Democrat, and that they believed they could get away with it because people who watch Fox News are gullible idiots. This is paranoia so astonishingly stupid that I'm surprised you're not cowering in the closet, hiding from the greys with the anal probes. -- RHO
Then you say "Stop supporting people just because they are on "your team" and start looking at the world critically." I can only respond with a request that you learn to read more carefully -- and request you THINK critically. They are not "my team". To claim they are simply because I dont buy your huge conspiracy (which involves Fox being in bed with that hard-core right wing agency -- the (queue evil music) Assoicated Press) -- it's just silly. As you are silly.
Unless you really are pulling my leg. Then in that case -- GOOD JOB! You got me! I thought you were a serious nutter!
I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that nobody at the show noticed, either during creation or review of the show before airing
I'm glad your sorry, but it's understandable. You are blinded by your own ideology. The program is recorded in what's called "live to tape". It's obvious it went un-noticed by the producers... it wasn't until it aired that the error was discovered and was removed on subsequent airings of the program.
You make it sound as if there's a post-production team that runs through the show making sure there's no gaffs. "Hey, Charlie! I see the boom mic! Let's reshoot". It doesn't work that way.
Even still, I might be able to accept it as sheer incompetence, if it weren't for the fact Foley being a republican is a very relevant part of the story.
His party affiliation has as little to do with the story than did Gary Condit's party affiliation had to do with his scandals. Please note, that there were similar 'mistakes' made with Condit -- he was declared a Republican on numerous programs and print (including the LA times) -- as others have pointed out here.
However, much of the controversy involves the Republican leadership covering up and even allowing more (!) young pages to serve under him after they knew about the first incidents.
So it's a done deal? The "republican leadership" covered this up? Please contact the DC authorities and provide your sources because you are the only one making that claim as a fact -- so I'm sure you MUST have some inside information -- RIGHT?
Honestly, this is just effing silly. I'm not a republican nor democrat... but the finger pointing for EVERY scandal has GOT to stop. The left calling the right a "Culture of Corruption". Geez... Effing think-speak. Then you have William Jefferson (D) and the bribery scandal. These are corrupt PEOPLE... not corrupt IDEOLOGIES.
From what I've read, it wasn't 3 separate typos, but a single typo displayed three times, over two segments... basically push a button to make the text come up...
You make it sound like there were three separate instances where it was deliberately mistyped three separate times. This was a single instance on a single program -- that was displayed 3 times.
Yeah... and I'm sure it wasn't an accident that CNN stuck an X over Cheney... Bah. I once saw CNN mislabel Syria as Iraq on a map graphic once. I'm sure CNN wasn't trying to erase Syria... I'm sure CNN wasn't trying to erase Cheney. I'm also sure Fox wasn't trying to convince viewers Foley was a democrat...
Considering that Republicans are the ones pushing the racist bills, yes. (And before you say anything about affirmative action, go read about the Bakke case.)
Ok. What about the Bakke case? Justice Powell's opinion (he was nominated by Nixon, a republican) provided a binding precedent establishing diversity as a compelling state interest. How does this support your claim that republicans push racist bills? Further, the majority opinion (Brennan, Marshall, White, Powell and Blackmun) were appointed by Repblican, Democrat, Democrat, Republican and Republican, respectively. Again, how does this support your claim that republicans push racist bills?
Notice that the KKK publically supported Bush in the 2004 election
In CM's defense, this is the most complex PCA they have manufactured to date. It pushes the limits of their capabilities. The main PCA contains three BGAs and several high pin density surface mount devices. The bulk of CM's output is fairly simple mice and game controllers. CM top management wants to work with WiLife because it forces their factory to enhance their capabilities.
The author himself says they went with a firm that had never worked on anything more complicated than mice or game controllers. Of course they were going to encounter problems. And it looks like they were OK with that with the deal they were getting...
Republicans suppress the minority vote to keep Democrats home. I proved it
I think the only thing that supresses votes (minority or otherwise) is apathy. As to your claim "I proved it", I suggest some light reading... Other than linquistic apoplexy, you 'proved' nothing.
Your second claim was based on the first false claim: that because of the significant difference between the parties, this is evidence the GOP is playing dirty tricks.
It also assumes that all republicans ONLY vote republican and all democrats ONLY vote democrat and all other voters (which make up a significant percentage -- ~10% of registered voters in the few states I looked at) will vote for neither.
Of course, history tells us that more democrats cross party lines to vote republican and most NPA voters tend to vote republican than democrat. Hint: I'm neither blue nor red -- and I've voted both ways in the past.
We have tons of unproven allegations of dirty tricks slung by the left to the right, but if memory serves, there's a fairly substantial number of proven (and prosecuted) cases of dirty tricks from the left AGAINST the right (GOP tires slashed by dems, filing false/fraudulent voter registration forms (chad stanton), voter fraud in St. Louis (Charles Powell).
You are confusing making money with growing the economy that matters: production of goods and services for the benefit of consumers. The rich don't contribute to essential economy that nearly as much as do the rest of us.
Actually, I would suggest you are confusing making money with NOT causing economic growth. Unless someone is receiving money by charity, making money by DEFINITION is occuring as a result of good production, services, etc. Unless the people making the money are Silas Marner, making money GROWS the economy that as you say, "matters".
The real estate value increase doesn't grow the economy,
I'm not talking about real estate VALUE. Putting money in real estate will make you money over time, the REAL money is in the money the property can generate. Office buildings, Farms, mini-malls, apartments, etc. Which, by the way, is a HUGE part of the economy. The economy that "matters". Most real estate doesn't just "sit there" with money locked up in it.
I believe your statement that the rich "lock up their income" in "art, jewelry and luxury items" while true, is very incomplete and paints an inaccurate picture.
I'm ignoring real estate right now because it's VERY common for real estate to generate income and grow the economy (which btw, is why a lot of the rich hold real estate).
However, if we take your statement at face value, the rich wouldn't be "rich" for very long. If they didn't MAKE money, and just dropped it down on gemstones -- sooner or later, they'd run out of money.
BTW, some of us "middle class" ALSO lock up some of OUR income in "real estate, art, jewelry and luxury items". I own a home -- I guess my income is "locked up" and this is wrong how? I dare you to try and take away my wife's income-locking earrings away. I'll break all your digits if you even attempt to pick up and 're-distribute' the 'income' locked up in my La-Z-Boy chair and big-screen TV.
Slashdot Mirror
They certainly dont do so regularly if they wish to remain employees. What we have here, I think, is a difference in opinion of what amount of slack is acceptable.
My department staff (about 8) range from 8 years to as recent as 6 months ago. Most have been with us for over 4 years. For a department that picked up most of it's staff 4 years ago, I think we're doing well. BTW, the 6 month hire was an add-on. We needed addtional staff -- our company is still growing.
Who said "no downtime"? Clearly, "down time" is mandated by California Law. If you NEED more down time than 15 minutes every 2 hours, (more than 10% of your time spent in "down time"), then I think the problem is clearly with you and I certainly wouldn't consider you for hire -- or if you somehow passed through, I wouldn't keep you past probation.
California Labor Law requirements are fairly strict (with a bit of wiggleroom, but not much) on when breaks must be provided.
Blame Sacramento. I'd like a government that treated it's citizens as adults.
That may be how your brain works -- and you may have found a career and employer that allows it, but I think that's the exception rather than the rule.
/. reads a day are during regular breaks...
I'm fairly certain I could find someone who can be as productive as you when you are working -- the entire day (sans scheduled breaks) with your skill set who doesn't find it necessary to spend 10 mins playing a flash game to let something "sink in". Unless your flash playing/sink-in time and 5 some odd
I'm not trying to attack you. It's just been my experience that there are plenty of people out there who DON'T require thinking "down time", who are exceptionally productive and more often than not, less troublesome employees. What you are describing sounds to me to be stress coping rather than thought processing -- which, as management -- suggests to me you have poor stress coping skills or are more prone work poorly under work-related pressure.
Our simple answer:
"We don't take requests from department managers".
At our shop, requests for such information come from the HR director or the General Manager and only those people. And such information is provided to them and them alone. Such rules make our lives easier. HR and/or the GM workout what to do with the department head -- solutions which may involve IT or not.
Such requests are rare now. They are usually handled by the supervisor alone now without need of escalation.
M.U.L.E.
My 2nd home is on IRATA.
After that:
Alternate Reality
Ultima IV
Jumpman
and tied for 5th are a number of old infocom games (Zork, H2G2, Infidel)
Great... now swap "black" for democrat and "buddist" for republican... Let's see how many other fallacious generalizations we can make!
Oh good. I'm sorry I misunderstood you.
Oh... nevermind... You ARE saying that...
So... Democrats who are always talking about election reform... and the need for clean elections... We should "doubt upon the party's position" when they "repeatedly demonstrated that, privately, such values aren't important to them"?
There's a lot of examples. Buying votes... registering people who don't exist. Voting multiple times. Overwhelmingly democrats. Read...
You provide a perfect example:
This is a complete and utter fallacy. It's guilt by association. So what if you have TEAM A saying they support Y? Then it turns out a MEMBER of team A did something AGAINST "Y"... According to your faulty logic, ALL of team were "open for the label of hypocrits". This is an astounding position to take and a classic example of guilt by association fallacy. Why you refuse to accept this is beyond belief -- unless we condlude that you suffer from some ideology induced selective blindness.
Well, damn my lying eyes!
But it is. So... Because William Jefferson (D) takes bribes and undermines the rule of law, all democrats are therefor targets for some whacked out 'guilt by association' games? And this makes logical sense to you?
You are correct! Give that poster a kewpie doll!
The amount of assumptions one needs to make to take your position *IS* , as you say: "ludicrous, beyond belief and could only be held by someone with little or no reasoning or critical thinking skills." Thank you for that fine loquacious summary.
Um. You are asking me to prove a negative.
Wow. A link to a google search of "fox news lies". That's all the proof we need? Ok. Then I guess your position is a load of cricket poop put out by the left wing whackos who are controlled by the girly magazines who are a secret underground spy agency working under the direct control of Karl Rove
You say "suspected" here. Yet before, you said: "However, much of the controversy involves the Republican leadership covering up and even allowing more (!) young pages to serve under him after they knew about the first incidents" -- which is a statement of fact. Sad you dont see the difference. It's also sad that those whailing these "suspicious" are the democrats. It would be just as crackers to say the LEFT knew about this and hung on to it until Octorber to best impact against the RIGHT -- allowing this wanker to diddle boys virtually.
Also, you should click on the link you provided... And actually read the stories. Trust me... I'm not living under a rock. Nor do I get my news in "sound-bite" headlines.
Yes, that is correct. I do not. And his JOB as a legislator is only relevant to his constituents. He did the right thing and resigned. The authorities are doing their investigations.
Seriously. The republicans are not alone in page-related sex scandals. Nor this a problem with the HoR alone. It is a PARTY NEUTRAL issue.
I'll quote another user from this thread who stated quite well the blinders those who think like you must be wearing:
Then you say "Stop supporting people just because they are on "your team" and start looking at the world critically." I can only respond with a request that you learn to read more carefully -- and request you THINK critically. They are not "my team". To claim they are simply because I dont buy your huge conspiracy (which involves Fox being in bed with that hard-core right wing agency -- the (queue evil music) Assoicated Press) -- it's just silly. As you are silly.
Unless you really are pulling my leg. Then in that case -- GOOD JOB! You got me! I thought you were a serious nutter!
You make it sound as if there's a post-production team that runs through the show making sure there's no gaffs. "Hey, Charlie! I see the boom mic! Let's reshoot". It doesn't work that way.His party affiliation has as little to do with the story than did Gary Condit's party affiliation had to do with his scandals. Please note, that there were similar 'mistakes' made with Condit -- he was declared a Republican on numerous programs and print (including the LA times) -- as others have pointed out here.So it's a done deal? The "republican leadership" covered this up? Please contact the DC authorities and provide your sources because you are the only one making that claim as a fact -- so I'm sure you MUST have some inside information -- RIGHT?
Honestly, this is just effing silly. I'm not a republican nor democrat... but the finger pointing for EVERY scandal has GOT to stop. The left calling the right a "Culture of Corruption". Geez... Effing think-speak. Then you have William Jefferson (D) and the bribery scandal. These are corrupt PEOPLE... not corrupt IDEOLOGIES.
From what I've read, it wasn't 3 separate typos, but a single typo displayed three times, over two segments... basically push a button to make the text come up...
You make it sound like there were three separate instances where it was deliberately mistyped three separate times. This was a single instance on a single program -- that was displayed 3 times.
And both those stories were AP stories... and we ALL know how conservative and republican the associated press is, right?
Or is a more reasonable answer that the AP misprinted their affiliation and the problem propagated across the cut-paste press?
Yeah... and I'm sure it wasn't an accident that CNN stuck an X over Cheney... Bah. I once saw CNN mislabel Syria as Iraq on a map graphic once. I'm sure CNN wasn't trying to erase Syria... I'm sure CNN wasn't trying to erase Cheney. I'm also sure Fox wasn't trying to convince viewers Foley was a democrat...
Of course, history tells us that more democrats cross party lines to vote republican and most NPA voters tend to vote republican than democrat. Hint: I'm neither blue nor red -- and I've voted both ways in the past.
We have tons of unproven allegations of dirty tricks slung by the left to the right, but if memory serves, there's a fairly substantial number of proven (and prosecuted) cases of dirty tricks from the left AGAINST the right (GOP tires slashed by dems, filing false/fraudulent voter registration forms (chad stanton), voter fraud in St. Louis (Charles Powell).
Sigh.
Heisenberg gets stopped by a cop for speeding.
"Do you have any idea how fast you were going?", asks the cop.
"No. But I know exactly where I am!"
I believe your statement that the rich "lock up their income" in "art, jewelry and luxury items" while true, is very incomplete and paints an inaccurate picture.
I'm ignoring real estate right now because it's VERY common for real estate to generate income and grow the economy (which btw, is why a lot of the rich hold real estate).
However, if we take your statement at face value, the rich wouldn't be "rich" for very long. If they didn't MAKE money, and just dropped it down on gemstones -- sooner or later, they'd run out of money.
BTW, some of us "middle class" ALSO lock up some of OUR income in "real estate, art, jewelry and luxury items". I own a home -- I guess my income is "locked up" and this is wrong how? I dare you to try and take away my wife's income-locking earrings away. I'll break all your digits if you even attempt to pick up and 're-distribute' the 'income' locked up in my La-Z-Boy chair and big-screen TV.