*nod* That's actually why I'm kinda glad I didn't get past the second round of interviews with them (an earlier poster was correct - they get so down into the nitty gritty that has so little to do with the original question that it's absolutely about one-upmanship and NOT solely about getting capable people in). I now work from home with a nice salary, and I'd have other perks if I actually felt the need to take advantage of them (like having my internet access paid for...) Basically, unless someone's going to sponsor a security clearance or drop a 30% higher salary on me (or both), I ain't going anywhere. Even to work for Google.
You also forget the Baltimore-Washington area which is just filled with contractors and IT services positions, primarily with the government as their customers.
CoL is kinda shitty, but it's comparable to the Boston and NYC suburbs.
Exactly. When I ran the abuse desk at Alabanza (google it, I did my job, and the community loves me to this day for it), abusive complaints ("Why the fuck won't you do anything about your fucking spammers?!") were automatically round-filed. POLITE complaints received action.
I very rarely personally replied to a complainant. Usually the ones I -did- reply to were people I either knew, or who were common complainants that I saw a couple from a day. Everyone got my auto-responder. I also posted in NANAE, and participated in a number of related mailling lists. The fact of the matter is, the volume of complaints at most ISPs really IS far too high for responses to be made any more than a small percentage of them.
Good luck getting your employer to own up to it, and expect them to give the Feds job descriptions for positions like yours that describe an exempt position rather than the one you're actually doing.
Odds are, if your employer isn't paying you OT for on-call time or incident response, you're going to have to sue to get it. Maybe it'll be worth it, maybe not, but more than a few companies in this country would be bankrupted if they actually followed the law.
You DO, in fact, get paid more, in a very real sense. Take childcare - I'm out $10,400 a year due to that expense (actually, it's a bit more, but close enough for this). The standard 'deduction' that I receive for having my children is just about 2/3's of that. You don't have that expense, so you have the money in your pocket to spend on part of your monthly payment on that second home, that Porsche or that hooker you call a 'wife'.
Those sick days that we take to take care of our kids are sick days that WE cannot take if and when we, ourselves are sick. Those vacation days that we have to burn as sick time because of a serious medical issue with a child are less real vacation and relaxation days that we will have. Vacation days, that, if we were to leave for a new job, YOU would receive back as cash, but we would see nothing because we ended up using them for something far more important than another week long liberal/green love fest in Paris. Yet more -real money- that you see, and that we do not, because we chose to have children.
You are more likely -able- to contribute the MAX amount allowed by law into your 401k. Something I, and many other single parents, and parents in general, are unable to do. You do not have to look forward to paying on student loans for your children to be educated by anti-family, anti-human, racist bastards like yourself. If you can call that an education.
So yes, you do get paid more. Far more. And then you -=DERIDE=- those of us that have chosen to have children. Those of us that have chosen to do what is absolutely necessary for the survival of our race. Something that you hoity-toity liberal fucks who get snipped at 21 HAVE SELFISHLY CHOSEN NOT TO DO.
You're gonna call me selfish for HAVING kids? Fuck you. You have no cognitive sense as to the sacrifice and absolute selflessness that one must have in order to be a parent. The world is better off that you shitheads like you never breed. Sadly, it's genetic fuck-ups like you that are educating our children, and convincing them that being a parent is such a heinous, selfish thing to be, when in all reality, choosing NOT to have children is far, far more selfish.
Again. Fuck you. You have the cognitive abilities of a flea if you cannot comprehend why your stance is untenable for any nation, or race, or family to maintain. Do the world a favor and just off yourself, you colossal waste of oxygen. Maybe then you'll be useful, if your remains don't poison the ground beneath which they are buried or upon which your ashes are scattered.
This is why my employer issues managed laptops for all of our remote employees (which account for something like 1/3 of our work force, from what I understand, and -everyone- on the team I work with).
I use my home, personal pc for home, personal shit, and my work pc is used absolutely strictly for work.
Can I install outside applications on it? Sure. Aside from tools that I need to do my job, I don't install jack shit on the machine, and I -might- throw a legal copy of a game I have when I have to travel for use in the hotel, and it's removed once the trip is over (never a multi-player game, and absolutely not WoW).
But anyways, yeah. I'm a big fan of telecommuting, or opening smaller offices outside the major metros, for a variety of reasons.
Except, as previously noted, it's NOT the 'job' of the police to protect you.
It's YOUR job to protect you.
The job of the police is to clean up the mess, and catch the perpetrator, not to prevent a crime from occurring, particularly if they don't have evidence that the crime is continuing elsewhere.
Truthfully, we'd be pleased as punch to shut up if the same would occur from the other side.
Keep Jack Thompson and Mrs. Brady on a fucking leash, and let everyone grieve for a week or two and allow the police the time they need to put this whole mess together.
But no, these fucktards can't leave well enough alone, and there must be a voice in dissent of their opinions.
Except you conveniently ignore that virtually every one of these crimes has occurred in areas where legal possession is banned, so there's no one present with the means to defend themselves.
And yet, you conveniently ignore all the research findings that airport and airliner security is, today, not appreciably better than it was on 9/11.
Knee-jerk reactions like 'banning' specific items will never, EVER solve the under-lying problem. Sadly, you obviously think that gun-ownership is the root of all criminal evil in this country, and the cause of such crimes. You, sir, are an idiot.
Figure out the root of criminal behaviour and get back to me. Guns are merely a tool. Others are just as effective, including for mass killings such as this.
Actually, Thompson specifically called the games trainers for this sort of thing in the interview.
So, yes, his theory really IS that the games are teaching the kids that play them how to kill.
Of course, he's completely overlooking what is likely to be a fact here - the shooter was an adult. All the anti-violent games laws that he's trying to get on the books wouldn't mean dick here.
He's a sanctimonious fuck-wad, and if I'd been able to find a call in number, I'd have tried to get on as a rebuttal. Oh, well.
estimates 70 years based on the resources that we know of, noting that, unlike with oil, we haven't been looking for Uranium for most of the last 25 years.
Hell, it's my understanding that a lot of the Uranium being used, currently, is coming from dismantled WMDs.
Other estimates I'm finding have the supply on the order of 200 years./shrug. No one really knows how much Uranium is out there, we simply stopped looking because we have enough either on hand, or easily available, literally for a lifetime.
Obviously, that will change, but Uranium (and it's cousin Thorium) aren't exactly hard to come by.
There's a dealer selling them a mile up the street from my house. They're street legal in the US, and they're definitely being drive (I typically see one a day on the road)./shrug. I personally think they look like ass, but whatever.
As for the highway thing - if you're not doing the speed limit, at least in MD, and it's obvious you're driving in the incorrect lane for the speed you're traveling, you can be pulled over and ticketed for being a road hazard.
It takes decades for the mistakes and policy changes made 20 and 25 years ago to really start to show, particularly when we're discussing education - you have to essentially flush the system.
So, no - it's only been in the last 15-20 years that we've -really- seen a lot of corporate abuse of their position (not that it didn't happen earlier, but it didn't necessarily happen at the same scale), and the predictable, to some, results./shrug.
[quote]Would you pay 'cover' to get into a retail store? Would you pay a sales person even if you didn't buy something. ie... the bookstore or shoestore could lower their prices and compete with amazon if you paid $20 dollars at the door just to get into the store. There'd be no incentive to buy online as the price in the store would be the same. You could still avoid going into the store, and just buy online directly, and save money, but you lose out on the chance to browse etc.[/quote]
Welcome to Sam's Club and BJs. Granted, they're annual fees, but this could easily become the future of all retail provided the court rules against the established rule.
Good or bad, it would certainly be an opening for a budding entrepeneur...although it would KILL all the ebay reseller stores that buy overstock and resell it.
Unfortunately, no, my sig didn't, but thanks for the link. Excellent read, and it definitely sums the issue up quite succinctly.
I think the main issue with commerce clause as interpreted then has a lot to do with temporal proximity to the creation of the constitution - many of these folks had parents (or grandparents at the oldest) involved in the Revolution and the formation of the country immediately following. They didn't have to guess as to the intent or the definitions of words in a specific phrase - they knew it from first hand accounts talking with the individuals directly involved.
Today, we have to rely on things like the Federalist Papers, and what other little written documentation exists. Sadly, it seems like our legislators don't give a god damn about the intent of the authors, and instead use tortuous definitions and interpretations to legitimize crap that shouldn't have even made it out of authorship, let alone into committee and eventually passed in Congress assembled.
When dealing with the past, we're almost always dealing with geologic time. The only reason we know about these super plumes is that plant life took -millions- of years to balance out the increased CO2 with O2. We're talking about plumes of C02 entering the atmosphere at a rate mankind couldn't even think of approaching, and doing it for hundreds, if not thousands, of years at a time.
We have very little temporal granularity when we start talking about the far distant past. Hell, man, we don't have a lot of granularity for shit much past the 1700's (and for weather, the mid-late 1800's). Extrapolating climatic models when ~150 years of -hard-, -observed- data should be scaring the fuck out of ANY scientist involved in this entire debate. Yes, we have evidence of what the climate in certain parts of the world was kinda-sorta like upwards of 800k years ago, but we're still talking, what, not quite 2 -hundredths- of a percent of the time the planet has been around. In fact,we HAVE to rely on the fossil record because the ice sheets, even on Antarctica are, at most, 40 million years old. We're talking about a time, here, that's millions of years BEFORE the ice sheets began to form.
150 years isn't even a blink in the eye of what true climate change is about - it might be the start of the synaptic signal telling the eye to blink.
With that said - yes, the climate does appear to be changing. How much affect has man had on it, though, is the question. Frankly, I don't think we're affecting it nearly as much (nor as little) as either side would like us to believe. We ARE having some affect, I will not disagree here, but I do not think that we should jump into 'solutions' like Kyoto without -really- thinking hard about the effect it will have on the global economy for a very, very minimal "gain", that might not even exist in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
*nod* That's actually why I'm kinda glad I didn't get past the second round of interviews with them (an earlier poster was correct - they get so down into the nitty gritty that has so little to do with the original question that it's absolutely about one-upmanship and NOT solely about getting capable people in).
I now work from home with a nice salary, and I'd have other perks if I actually felt the need to take advantage of them (like having my internet access paid for...) Basically, unless someone's going to sponsor a security clearance or drop a 30% higher salary on me (or both), I ain't going anywhere. Even to work for Google.
And it's a rather lucrative business to get into if you want to screw people out of their homes, too.
Not that I'm suggesting more people get into it - there's more than enough assholes doing it now as it is.
You also forget the Baltimore-Washington area which is just filled with contractors and IT services positions, primarily with the government as their customers.
CoL is kinda shitty, but it's comparable to the Boston and NYC suburbs.
This honestly may be in the cards for the next expansion.
Wouldn't surprise me in the least, TBH.
Be -very- interesting to see how it were to play out on the RP AND RP-PVP servers.
Exactly.
When I ran the abuse desk at Alabanza (google it, I did my job, and the community loves me to this day for it), abusive complaints ("Why the fuck won't you do anything about your fucking spammers?!") were automatically round-filed. POLITE complaints received action.
I very rarely personally replied to a complainant. Usually the ones I -did- reply to were people I either knew, or who were common complainants that I saw a couple from a day. Everyone got my auto-responder. I also posted in NANAE, and participated in a number of related mailling lists. The fact of the matter is, the volume of complaints at most ISPs really IS far too high for responses to be made any more than a small percentage of them.
And you're welcome to your decision.
Thankfully you're yet another selfish asshole that will not be contributing his/her genes to the pool.
Thank God.
Good luck getting your employer to own up to it, and expect them to give the Feds job descriptions for positions like yours that describe an exempt position rather than the one you're actually doing.
Odds are, if your employer isn't paying you OT for on-call time or incident response, you're going to have to sue to get it. Maybe it'll be worth it, maybe not, but more than a few companies in this country would be bankrupted if they actually followed the law.
And it sucks.
You DO, in fact, get paid more, in a very real sense. Take childcare - I'm out $10,400 a year due to that expense (actually, it's a bit more, but close enough for this). The standard 'deduction' that I receive for having my children is just about 2/3's of that. You don't have that expense, so you have the money in your pocket to spend on part of your monthly payment on that second home, that Porsche or that hooker you call a 'wife'.
Those sick days that we take to take care of our kids are sick days that WE cannot take if and when we, ourselves are sick. Those vacation days that we have to burn as sick time because of a serious medical issue with a child are less real vacation and relaxation days that we will have. Vacation days, that, if we were to leave for a new job, YOU would receive back as cash, but we would see nothing because we ended up using them for something far more important than another week long liberal/green love fest in Paris. Yet more -real money- that you see, and that we do not, because we chose to have children.
You are more likely -able- to contribute the MAX amount allowed by law into your 401k. Something I, and many other single parents, and parents in general, are unable to do. You do not have to look forward to paying on student loans for your children to be educated by anti-family, anti-human, racist bastards like yourself. If you can call that an education.
So yes, you do get paid more. Far more. And then you -=DERIDE=- those of us that have chosen to have children. Those of us that have chosen to do what is absolutely necessary for the survival of our race. Something that you hoity-toity liberal fucks who get snipped at 21 HAVE SELFISHLY CHOSEN NOT TO DO.
You're gonna call me selfish for HAVING kids? Fuck you. You have no cognitive sense as to the sacrifice and absolute selflessness that one must have in order to be a parent. The world is better off that you shitheads like you never breed. Sadly, it's genetic fuck-ups like you that are educating our children, and convincing them that being a parent is such a heinous, selfish thing to be, when in all reality, choosing NOT to have children is far, far more selfish.
Again. Fuck you. You have the cognitive abilities of a flea if you cannot comprehend why your stance is untenable for any nation, or race, or family to maintain. Do the world a favor and just off yourself, you colossal waste of oxygen. Maybe then you'll be useful, if your remains don't poison the ground beneath which they are buried or upon which your ashes are scattered.
This is why my employer issues managed laptops for all of our remote employees (which account for something like 1/3 of our work force, from what I understand, and -everyone- on the team I work with).
I use my home, personal pc for home, personal shit, and my work pc is used absolutely strictly for work.
Can I install outside applications on it? Sure. Aside from tools that I need to do my job, I don't install jack shit on the machine, and I -might- throw a legal copy of a game I have when I have to travel for use in the hotel, and it's removed once the trip is over (never a multi-player game, and absolutely not WoW).
But anyways, yeah. I'm a big fan of telecommuting, or opening smaller offices outside the major metros, for a variety of reasons.
Except, as previously noted, it's NOT the 'job' of the police to protect you.
It's YOUR job to protect you.
The job of the police is to clean up the mess, and catch the perpetrator, not to prevent a crime from occurring, particularly if they don't have evidence that the crime is continuing elsewhere.
Truthfully, we'd be pleased as punch to shut up if the same would occur from the other side.
Keep Jack Thompson and Mrs. Brady on a fucking leash, and let everyone grieve for a week or two and allow the police the time they need to put this whole mess together.
But no, these fucktards can't leave well enough alone, and there must be a voice in dissent of their opinions.
Except you conveniently ignore that virtually every one of these crimes has occurred in areas where legal possession is banned, so there's no one present with the means to defend themselves.
More strawmen, please. This one's easy...
And yet, you conveniently ignore all the research findings that airport and airliner security is, today, not appreciably better than it was on 9/11.
Knee-jerk reactions like 'banning' specific items will never, EVER solve the under-lying problem. Sadly, you obviously think that gun-ownership is the root of all criminal evil in this country, and the cause of such crimes. You, sir, are an idiot.
Figure out the root of criminal behaviour and get back to me. Guns are merely a tool. Others are just as effective, including for mass killings such as this.
Actually, Thompson specifically called the games trainers for this sort of thing in the interview.
So, yes, his theory really IS that the games are teaching the kids that play them how to kill.
Of course, he's completely overlooking what is likely to be a fact here - the shooter was an adult. All the anti-violent games laws that he's trying to get on the books wouldn't mean dick here.
He's a sanctimonious fuck-wad, and if I'd been able to find a call in number, I'd have tried to get on as a rebuttal. Oh, well.
And you're a sanctimonious cock-sucking, gun-grabbing shithead.
1. Yes. we're in love with our guns. Suck it.
2. I agree.
3. No. Dumbasses using guns kill people. Get it fucking right.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip75.htm
/shrug. No one really knows how much Uranium is out there, we simply stopped looking because we have enough either on hand, or easily available, literally for a lifetime.
estimates 70 years based on the resources that we know of, noting that, unlike with oil, we haven't been looking for Uranium for most of the last 25 years.
Hell, it's my understanding that a lot of the Uranium being used, currently, is coming from dismantled WMDs.
Other estimates I'm finding have the supply on the order of 200 years.
Obviously, that will change, but Uranium (and it's cousin Thorium) aren't exactly hard to come by.
Part of the issue, there, is that vehicles in the ultra-light/small category are selling for premium and luxury prices.
Do I buy a two-seater commuter-type mini-car for 25k, or do I get a Corolla, loaded, for 19-22k?
The -only- way you'll sell mass numbers of the smaller cars like that is to cut the prices. A lot. Like, by half or more.
There's a dealer selling them a mile up the street from my house. /shrug.
They're street legal in the US, and they're definitely being drive (I typically see one a day on the road).
I personally think they look like ass, but whatever.
As for the highway thing - if you're not doing the speed limit, at least in MD, and it's obvious you're driving in the incorrect lane for the speed you're traveling, you can be pulled over and ticketed for being a road hazard.
Good thing, too.
It takes decades for the mistakes and policy changes made 20 and 25 years ago to really start to show, particularly when we're discussing education - you have to essentially flush the system.
/shrug.
So, no - it's only been in the last 15-20 years that we've -really- seen a lot of corporate abuse of their position (not that it didn't happen earlier, but it didn't necessarily happen at the same scale), and the predictable, to some, results.
Fairly easy to answer -
The Chinese or Indians (or both in concert) landing a man on the moon.
I fully suspect that is what it's going to take.
[quote]Would you pay 'cover' to get into a retail store? Would you pay a sales person even if you didn't buy something. ie... the bookstore or shoestore could lower their prices and compete with amazon if you paid $20 dollars at the door just to get into the store. There'd be no incentive to buy online as the price in the store would be the same. You could still avoid going into the store, and just buy online directly, and save money, but you lose out on the chance to browse etc.[/quote]
Welcome to Sam's Club and BJs. Granted, they're annual fees, but this could easily become the future of all retail provided the court rules against the established rule.
Good or bad, it would certainly be an opening for a budding entrepeneur...although it would KILL all the ebay reseller stores that buy overstock and resell it.
God I love a good Real Genius reference.
Good job.
Unfortunately, no, my sig didn't, but thanks for the link.
Excellent read, and it definitely sums the issue up quite succinctly.
I think the main issue with commerce clause as interpreted then has a lot to do with temporal proximity to the creation of the constitution - many of these folks had parents (or grandparents at the oldest) involved in the Revolution and the formation of the country immediately following. They didn't have to guess as to the intent or the definitions of words in a specific phrase - they knew it from first hand accounts talking with the individuals directly involved.
Today, we have to rely on things like the Federalist Papers, and what other little written documentation exists. Sadly, it seems like our legislators don't give a god damn about the intent of the authors, and instead use tortuous definitions and interpretations to legitimize crap that shouldn't have even made it out of authorship, let alone into committee and eventually passed in Congress assembled.
As a general rule you should try, anyway.
Even if it is basically impossible these days, since it's in just about everything.
When the fuck did using regular fucking sugar become a problem?
Oh, wait, that's right. Cuba. Duh.
When dealing with the past, we're almost always dealing with geologic time.
The only reason we know about these super plumes is that plant life took -millions- of years to balance out the increased CO2 with O2.
We're talking about plumes of C02 entering the atmosphere at a rate mankind couldn't even think of approaching, and doing it for hundreds, if not thousands, of years at a time.
We have very little temporal granularity when we start talking about the far distant past. Hell, man, we don't have a lot of granularity for shit much past the 1700's (and for weather, the mid-late 1800's). Extrapolating climatic models when ~150 years of -hard-, -observed- data should be scaring the fuck out of ANY scientist involved in this entire debate. Yes, we have evidence of what the climate in certain parts of the world was kinda-sorta like upwards of 800k years ago, but we're still talking, what, not quite 2 -hundredths- of a percent of the time the planet has been around. In fact,we HAVE to rely on the fossil record because the ice sheets, even on Antarctica are, at most, 40 million years old. We're talking about a time, here, that's millions of years BEFORE the ice sheets began to form.
150 years isn't even a blink in the eye of what true climate change is about - it might be the start of the synaptic signal telling the eye to blink.
With that said - yes, the climate does appear to be changing. How much affect has man had on it, though, is the question. Frankly, I don't think we're affecting it nearly as much (nor as little) as either side would like us to believe. We ARE having some affect, I will not disagree here, but I do not think that we should jump into 'solutions' like Kyoto without -really- thinking hard about the effect it will have on the global economy for a very, very minimal "gain", that might not even exist in the first place.