False. Microsoft existed in the table space while Apple was still floundering around for dear life.
Yes, they made tablet PCs, and Windows tablets sucked. Not trying to troll here, but the problem with Windows phones, tablets, and PDAs has been that the user interface has always been Windows, scaled down to a small fraction of your screen size, with an on-screen keyboard that you have to peck at with a stylus.
Apple's great innovation wasn't in hardware, or the idea "lets put something on that hardware", but in the fact that they came up with a simple user interface that doesn't require a stylus. Not a fanboy, but I did have a winmo 6 phone. I then got a droid 2, which I still have and love. No, it's not an apple product, but you can still see Apple's influence in the user interface.
Of these, Peter describes it as gloomy (similar to Hades), James as fiery, Jesus and Paul purely as a place Angels and Humans can be exiled to, possibly with a gate and wall.
Angels can't get past a gate and a wall? Are they Mongolian?
Psychologists found significantly lower crime rates in societies where many people believe in hell compared to those where more people believed in heaven."
If there's good then there's evil. If there's a God then there's a Devil. If there's a Heaven then there's a Hell.
How can there be one without the other?
There just can. Some people believe in a pantheon of gods. Some believe in a neutral god. And I see no reason to assume anything about any god. Does he have a sidekick? An enemy? Is the devil just an underling who is there to make free will seem more significant? With untrustworthy, conflicting accounts, and no evidence, it's anybody's guess.
For some reason, I am more frightened of handing my email address over to a "government agency" with a gmail account than I am of the "Kill List". Does that make me too paranoid, not paranoid enough, or just poorly prioritized?
two-thirds of mobile employees say they are working 50+ and 60+ hour weeks
Which means a third is working more hours while not doing a damn thing more. Either that or a lot of people are lying about how much they work.
Or they were working 50+ or 60+ hours before, and now they're getting more done in the same amount of time. Or, they accomplish the same amount in the time they're working, but they spend more time working because their bosses confuse "working from home" with "always on call".
Working more hours for the same quality and quantity of work just shows poor time management on the part of the employee.
My point was that they could have a higher workload placed upon them. Even if that's not a significant problem, I would caution against kneejerk "fire the bum" judgements.
If they are exceeding expectations at home then they would probably do the same in the office
Maybe. Maybe not. I would love to be able to work uninterrupted. That's something people at my company don't understand. They think you can just call up a developer at every whim, and they're pretty much right. The only part they don't get is that the developer cannot work in five-minute spurts. If I had the option to tune all that out and only deal with requests and inane soul-shattering bullshit on regular intervals, then I would probably be more productive and less bitter. And then there is the issue of time spent driving. Even a short commute could net you 30 minutes to an hour on the road, especially if the employee has to eat out for lunch.
except now you literally have some people wanking off all day long.
I'll agree that that is a problem, but it always was. Now, it's just exaggerated.
two-thirds of mobile employees say they are working 50+ and 60+ hour weeks
Which means a third is working more hours while not doing a damn thing more. Either that or a lot of people are lying about how much they work.
Or they were working 50+ or 60+ hours before, and now they're getting more done in the same amount of time. Or, they accomplish the same amount in the time they're working, but they spend more time working because their bosses confuse "working from home" with "always on call".
McDonalds isn't bad if you skip the fries and soda. Try ordering two Big Macs instead of a 'menu'.
(Though if you don't order fries+soda they might call security, it's unpatriotic...)
The only problem there is that Big Macs are over 500 calories each, and high in sodium. You would probably be better off replacing one of the burgers with apples, a fruit and walnut salad, or a side salad. I typically would order either a grilled chicken bacon ranch salad, or a snack wrap, side salad, and (sometimes) apple dipper. The three items together fall in the around 500 calorie range.
I'm just now realizing that I eat at McDonald's too damn much.
I don't think "anything but McDonald's" is "severely limiting". I am a veggie (but not a vegan) and 99% of restaurants are fine. Any pizza place is good. Subway is great. Most burger joints offer a garden burger or some kind of veggie wrap. McDonalds is the ONLY major chain that doesn't "get it". And, no, french fries don't count.
Not a vegetarian, but my wife is (sort of), and she was mentioning how bad Hardy's/Carl's Jr is. I think she got a cheese quesadilla, but that was it.
To be fair, McDonalds 'salads' are so laden with oil and sugar that it's difficult to class them as healthy choices...
Err....I don't believe McD's salads come "pre-dressed"...it only gets full of oil and sugar if the person heaps on a dressing that is full of oil and sugar...?!?
I think they do offer lighter salad dressing choices?
They do offer light Italian and balsamic vinaigrette dressings that clock in at about 60 calories (too lazy to look it up right now). Add chicken, cheese and bacon (standard on their more 'generic' large salad), and it is around 450 calories. People like to bash McDonald's, but their healthy options aren't that bad.
Of course the guy who says "x is a problem, let's do something about it" is going to benefit when people start listening. Your two examples are:
Someone proposes and implements a free market solution - That asshole! He's trying to profit from this.
someone proposes a government solution - Those assholes! They're putting people who believe it exists in charge of preventing it!
Just try to think about it the other way for a second. If this were a problem and you honestly wanted to do something about it, how would you do so, without it either making money, making you famous, making some other person famous, making some other person money, giving more control to some people, or taking control from others?
Once you can find a way to do it in a completely selfless manner that inconveniences no one, then you can complain about the conspiracies started by "alarmists".
This guy is saying the sort of things that have been getting me downmodded here on slashdot for years.
Global Warming/Climate Change may or may not be happening. But if it is it ain't happening at anything like the rate that would justify dismantling civilization over, we still aren't sure whether it is us or a natural cycle we don't undertstand, etc. And he doesn't go there but I will: too many politicians with a preexisting anti-civilization (Western industrial captialism based ccivilization that is...) bias glommed onto AGW with the willing consent of a lot of brand name scientists, thereby (rightly) harming the public's trust of all science.
Have you ever considered the possibility that you got downmodded because you conflate acceptance of man-made global warming with "an attempt to dismantle civilization"?
Why are we in America so terrified of the human body?
One word: Christian Right
body hostility is an old christian tradition. Not really sure where it came from, probably as a counterpoint to the much more relaxed romans and then it just stuck.
Guilt is one hell of a control device. It keeps the flock coming back. It creates an insurmountable gap between them and the secular world, and makes for one hell of a slippery slope argument. After all, the people who ask too many questions seem to have no problem with sex, masturbation, gluttony, drinking or drug use. If that's what they're doing today, imagine how much worse they'll be in 20 years.
Who is the moron here? I'd put my money on the one totally oblivious to sarcasm.
Really, all you and the ones who modded me Troll accomplished is prove my point: the current crop of atheists, especially the ones haunting Slashdot, are as humourlessly fanatic as religious fundamentalists.
Mart
You must be a blast at parties. Tell me when you're headlining at the Apollo. Just don't tell the audience "you people aren't smart enough to recognize a good joke"...They may not take it well.
You want this to be an open and shut case of some right wingnut with a gun killing some innocent helpless black kid. The media did no favors by showing a 13 year old Martin to make him look like a little kid.
No. I really don't care too much about Zimmerman or Martin. I don't care if Martin really attacked Zimmerman, and I definitely don't care if he had cornrows, gold teeth, tattoos, and gangsta poses. What I care about is, how far does the law let you go? Did Martin know that Zimmerman was leaving? Did he overhear the conversation Zimmerman was having? Did he know Zimmerman had a gun, or that he wasn't going to his car to get one? Is it ok to follow someone in the name of "standing your ground"? I've argued with coworkers about whether you can shoot someone in the back in self-defense (someone locally go charged with "assault" because they shot a home intruder several times in the back while he was running away).
This is what I dislike about the SYG law, as people in the media have been portraying it. The word "aggressor" has been diluted to the point where you don't have to be attacking someone, or even looking in their general direction. You just have to look threatening.
You do know that Zimmerman was treated at the scene for injuries from havnig his head slammed into concrete by the 6'3" (1.9m) athlete Martin, was taken to the police station in hand cuffs, questioned, and released? You do know that there was at least one eyewitness that corroborated that Zimmerman was on the ground being attacked and calling for help?
Wasn't Martin standing his ground? He was walking down the street, unarmed, when he noticed some stranger following him. He may not have known that Zimmerman was armed, but he (Zimmerman) was obviously up to something. Martin may have even tried to escape. (Considering that he was walking away from Zimmerman, it's hard to say if and when his behavior went from "walking home from the store" to "trying to get away from stalker").
So, under the interpretation of SYG being tossed around, didn't Martin have the right to defend himself?
I am fully convinced that the sole reason for this fuckery is that there was not enough room for "Baysplosions" in the original plot, and space was the most likely setting.
Oh, come on! Anyone who's played the video games knows that New York city is full of barrels.
Slashdot Mirror
That is without a doubt my favorite episode.
So, it's a wall in the same sense that a firewall is a wall, meaning "not really".
False. Microsoft existed in the table space while Apple was still floundering around for dear life.
Yes, they made tablet PCs, and Windows tablets sucked. Not trying to troll here, but the problem with Windows phones, tablets, and PDAs has been that the user interface has always been Windows, scaled down to a small fraction of your screen size, with an on-screen keyboard that you have to peck at with a stylus.
Apple's great innovation wasn't in hardware, or the idea "lets put something on that hardware", but in the fact that they came up with a simple user interface that doesn't require a stylus. Not a fanboy, but I did have a winmo 6 phone. I then got a droid 2, which I still have and love. No, it's not an apple product, but you can still see Apple's influence in the user interface.
Of these, Peter describes it as gloomy (similar to Hades), James as fiery, Jesus and Paul purely as a place Angels and Humans can be exiled to, possibly with a gate and wall.
Angels can't get past a gate and a wall? Are they Mongolian?
Psychologists found significantly lower crime rates in societies where many people believe in hell compared to those where more people believed in heaven."
If there's good then there's evil. If there's a God then there's a Devil. If there's a Heaven then there's a Hell.
How can there be one without the other?
There just can. Some people believe in a pantheon of gods. Some believe in a neutral god. And I see no reason to assume anything about any god. Does he have a sidekick? An enemy? Is the devil just an underling who is there to make free will seem more significant? With untrustworthy, conflicting accounts, and no evidence, it's anybody's guess.
For some reason, I am more frightened of handing my email address over to a "government agency" with a gmail account than I am of the "Kill List". Does that make me too paranoid, not paranoid enough, or just poorly prioritized?
Oh, and it's far easier to catch people who look at pictures than it is to stop those who are doing the molesting.
Right...You have to update your passport, and the Vatican is so far away. Airfare is just too expensive.
a third of workers [...] were 'more productive'
two-thirds of mobile employees say they are working 50+ and 60+ hour weeks
Which means a third is working more hours while not doing a damn thing more.
Either that or a lot of people are lying about how much they work.
Or they were working 50+ or 60+ hours before, and now they're getting more done in the same amount of time. Or, they accomplish the same amount in the time they're working, but they spend more time working because their bosses confuse "working from home" with "always on call".
Working more hours for the same quality and quantity of work just shows poor time management on the part of the employee.
My point was that they could have a higher workload placed upon them. Even if that's not a significant problem, I would caution against kneejerk "fire the bum" judgements.
If they are exceeding expectations at home then they would probably do the same in the office
Maybe. Maybe not. I would love to be able to work uninterrupted. That's something people at my company don't understand. They think you can just call up a developer at every whim, and they're pretty much right. The only part they don't get is that the developer cannot work in five-minute spurts. If I had the option to tune all that out and only deal with requests and inane soul-shattering bullshit on regular intervals, then I would probably be more productive and less bitter. And then there is the issue of time spent driving. Even a short commute could net you 30 minutes to an hour on the road, especially if the employee has to eat out for lunch.
except now you literally have some people wanking off all day long.
I'll agree that that is a problem, but it always was. Now, it's just exaggerated.
a third of workers [...] were 'more productive'
two-thirds of mobile employees say they are working 50+ and 60+ hour weeks
Which means a third is working more hours while not doing a damn thing more.
Either that or a lot of people are lying about how much they work.
Or they were working 50+ or 60+ hours before, and now they're getting more done in the same amount of time. Or, they accomplish the same amount in the time they're working, but they spend more time working because their bosses confuse "working from home" with "always on call".
I can see that. You have to "cheat" every now and then.
McDonalds isn't bad if you skip the fries and soda. Try ordering two Big Macs instead of a 'menu'.
(Though if you don't order fries+soda they might call security, it's unpatriotic...)
The only problem there is that Big Macs are over 500 calories each, and high in sodium. You would probably be better off replacing one of the burgers with apples, a fruit and walnut salad, or a side salad. I typically would order either a grilled chicken bacon ranch salad, or a snack wrap, side salad, and (sometimes) apple dipper. The three items together fall in the around 500 calorie range.
I'm just now realizing that I eat at McDonald's too damn much.
... severely limit choices of restaurants ...
I don't think "anything but McDonald's" is "severely limiting". I am a veggie (but not a vegan) and 99% of restaurants are fine. Any pizza place is good. Subway is great. Most burger joints offer a garden burger or some kind of veggie wrap. McDonalds is the ONLY major chain that doesn't "get it". And, no, french fries don't count.
Not a vegetarian, but my wife is (sort of), and she was mentioning how bad Hardy's/Carl's Jr is. I think she got a cheese quesadilla, but that was it.
Err....I don't believe McD's salads come "pre-dressed"...it only gets full of oil and sugar if the person heaps on a dressing that is full of oil and sugar...?!?
I think they do offer lighter salad dressing choices?
They do offer light Italian and balsamic vinaigrette dressings that clock in at about 60 calories (too lazy to look it up right now). Add chicken, cheese and bacon (standard on their more 'generic' large salad), and it is around 450 calories. People like to bash McDonald's, but their healthy options aren't that bad.
Chrisq posted a comment that may answer your questions. http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2828005&cid=39887513.
There have been many empires in world history that invested in religion.
Those investments are now nice tourist sites.
Go Jebus!
Praising religion for the monuments is like praising the mafia for inspiring good movies.
Of course the guy who says "x is a problem, let's do something about it" is going to benefit when people start listening. Your two examples are:
Just try to think about it the other way for a second. If this were a problem and you honestly wanted to do something about it, how would you do so, without it either making money, making you famous, making some other person famous, making some other person money, giving more control to some people, or taking control from others?
Once you can find a way to do it in a completely selfless manner that inconveniences no one, then you can complain about the conspiracies started by "alarmists".
This guy is saying the sort of things that have been getting me downmodded here on slashdot for years.
Global Warming/Climate Change may or may not be happening. But if it is it ain't happening at anything like the rate that would justify dismantling civilization over, we still aren't sure whether it is us or a natural cycle we don't undertstand, etc. And he doesn't go there but I will: too many politicians with a preexisting anti-civilization (Western industrial captialism based ccivilization that is...) bias glommed onto AGW with the willing consent of a lot of brand name scientists, thereby (rightly) harming the public's trust of all science.
Have you ever considered the possibility that you got downmodded because you conflate acceptance of man-made global warming with "an attempt to dismantle civilization"?
Why are we in America so terrified of the human body?
One word: Christian Right
body hostility is an old christian tradition. Not really sure where it came from, probably as a counterpoint to the much more relaxed romans and then it just stuck.
Guilt is one hell of a control device. It keeps the flock coming back. It creates an insurmountable gap between them and the secular world, and makes for one hell of a slippery slope argument. After all, the people who ask too many questions seem to have no problem with sex, masturbation, gluttony, drinking or drug use. If that's what they're doing today, imagine how much worse they'll be in 20 years.
Hi. I'm the other liberal in Tennessee. Nice to meet you.
Who is the moron here? I'd put my money on the one totally oblivious to sarcasm.
Really, all you and the ones who modded me Troll accomplished is prove my point: the current crop of atheists, especially the ones haunting Slashdot, are as humourlessly fanatic as religious fundamentalists.
Mart
You must be a blast at parties. Tell me when you're headlining at the Apollo. Just don't tell the audience "you people aren't smart enough to recognize a good joke"...They may not take it well.
You want this to be an open and shut case of some right wingnut with a gun killing some innocent helpless black kid. The media did no favors by showing a 13 year old Martin to make him look like a little kid.
No. I really don't care too much about Zimmerman or Martin. I don't care if Martin really attacked Zimmerman, and I definitely don't care if he had cornrows, gold teeth, tattoos, and gangsta poses. What I care about is, how far does the law let you go? Did Martin know that Zimmerman was leaving? Did he overhear the conversation Zimmerman was having? Did he know Zimmerman had a gun, or that he wasn't going to his car to get one? Is it ok to follow someone in the name of "standing your ground"? I've argued with coworkers about whether you can shoot someone in the back in self-defense (someone locally go charged with "assault" because they shot a home intruder several times in the back while he was running away).
This is what I dislike about the SYG law, as people in the media have been portraying it. The word "aggressor" has been diluted to the point where you don't have to be attacking someone, or even looking in their general direction. You just have to look threatening.
And, yes, I can agree that it is complicated.
You do know that Zimmerman was treated at the scene for injuries from havnig his head slammed into concrete by the 6'3" (1.9m) athlete Martin, was taken to the police station in hand cuffs, questioned, and released? You do know that there was at least one eyewitness that corroborated that Zimmerman was on the ground being attacked and calling for help?
Wasn't Martin standing his ground? He was walking down the street, unarmed, when he noticed some stranger following him. He may not have known that Zimmerman was armed, but he (Zimmerman) was obviously up to something. Martin may have even tried to escape. (Considering that he was walking away from Zimmerman, it's hard to say if and when his behavior went from "walking home from the store" to "trying to get away from stalker").
So, under the interpretation of SYG being tossed around, didn't Martin have the right to defend himself?
I am fully convinced that the sole reason for this fuckery is that there was not enough room for "Baysplosions" in the original plot, and space was the most likely setting.
Oh, come on! Anyone who's played the video games knows that New York city is full of barrels.
Well, Jesus did place uncle Fred in a country full of godless scientists who could figure this stuff out.
Slash Dot bashing conservatives? Really, hard to believe.
Trust in science has declined among conservatives. would you rather slashdot censor that bit out, in the name of political correctness?