I know it's between the branches. But if one party controlls all three branches, and all three branches are shaking hands and pushing the party agenda, guess what happens?
Which is actually part of the problem. Once you have party affiliation, you have obligations you need to fulfill, loyalties that need to be maintained. Stray too far from the party line, and you're toast. Few politicians will take this risk, and so the band plays on.
I wish we *didn't* have political parties, but it's a little late for that; the barn door on that has long since rotted away.
I voted for a Libertarian. My state is highly (70%+) Democratic. The guy the state voted for didn't win.
Besides, that is *not* the point. The problem is that the system is supposed to prevent the Tyrany of the Majority, but if the majority has enough influence, balance is shifted drastically. Even if we vote every 2/4 years, the voting record is likely to statistically match previous years. Barring some accidental catastrophe on the part of the Republicans, they've effectively dismantled any method of checking their power.
Aside from a few "unpatriotic crackpots," few actually see the problem with this, so it will continue until there's no backing out.
This isn't just about pissing off Democrats. With two branches of the government controlled by a single party, and SCOTUS heading that way, what's left to maintain the "checks and balances" so carefully built into the system by our founders?
Everyone should be leery at the implications of this. As a Libertarian, this really scares me.
Unfortunately this isn't really about SCOTUS bashing. The point here is that two branches of the government are already controlled by one party, and this latest retirement risks sending the final branch in that direction, depending on who Bush decides to appoint.
We already know the Republicans can, if push comes to shove, remove the filibuster option. Think about what this implies... Three branches of the government all controlled by a single party with a single (supposedly) agenda. What happens to checks and balances when there is no more balance, and checks become mere formalities?
When I was in IB in High School, we used Writers Inc. I had one of the old yellow hardback copies that don't seem to be around anymore, and I can't find it anywhere. Very good book on all various esoterica pertaining to writing.
Well, I had open-heart surgery in 1984 when I was seven years old. They installed a Dacron patch, corrected a valve, and repaired other minor defects. Stopping the heart isn't the hard part, getting it started again is. Fortunately I was one of the rare cases where the heart starts by itself when blood is reintroduced.
While this advancement obviously has interesting medical implications, I'm not so sure this is one of them.
For example, an employee on an H1-B cannot earn less than the prevailing wage in his area. Evidently, continued demand for H1-Bs means the local talent pool is insufficient.
Or a company can claim the local talent pool is insufficient, thereby driving down the prevailing wage. Get it now?
Whaaaaat? Scope normally comes in 1L jugs for less than $5. Or if you search around, 50oz is roughly $4.50. That makes about $11.50 a gallon. Whoever compiled these numbers needs to quit using the tiny sampler bottles.;p
True. I keep waiting for it to become commonplace so people would get over it already. I mean, otherwise you could make the argument hot women with big breasts shouldn't work because they have a distracting influence on productivity.;p If you don't stare, it's not a big deal.
Except if you're not trying to distinguish yourself. How other people look is basically irrelevant to me, so I try to return the favor. People need to grow up, seriously. Does the little chat you receive mean women with nice breasts can't be in business? Because men are likely to spend more time looking than listening?
Humanity is diverse; a little engineered difference hardly compares to that which already permeates the world already. There really are other things you could spend your time worrying about than how someone looks.
Preach on! I've had deep metallic blue hair for the past four years, a decision I made because I'm a big fan of the color. I'm not trying to be a revolutionary or break any damn molds; I just like blue. If someone likes it, good for them, but I don't care. If they equate me with inconceivably rude unprofessionalism, they need to grow up, but I still don't care. Maybe in twenty years it'll be commonplace and other people will also not care, but for now, I'm content my decision doesn't affect anyone else.
Life is too short to live for other people; screw 'em if they can't loosen up a little. I was a stuffy nose-in-the-book nerd all the way past college. It's amazing what some self-confidence does for a person; my only regret is that I didn't have it back then. I know the perspective of the other side, and having been there, I can almost definitely say it's wrong. Jesus, people... have some fun or you'll be in your death-bed in fifty years regretting you didn't.
Who cares what other people think - they're not you!
I don't really give a shit what anyone wears. But when I see someone stroll in for a job interview with tattoos and piercings and unnatural hair colors, I dread the possibility of their being hired. Why? Because ninety-nine percent of them will end up spending an inordinate amount of work time talking about their body modification hobby, or bitching about the reactions they get, or otherwise trying to make themselves the center of attention rather than get any work done.
See, I'm a big fan of the color blue. I've been coloring my hair a deep metallic blue for the past four years. Everyone at work calls me the "blue-haired wonder" partially because I'm one of the two best coders here, and everyone has some kind of nickname. I pulled a triple major in three years back in my college days, and I learned enough Oracle to be an emergency DBA in about two weeks - a job I ended up keeping because I was better than the previous guy.
I don't do this for anyone but myself. It takes a couple hours every two or three months to maintain; it's only a side effect other people even notice. I will not change my opinion or my life to accommodate outdated stereotypes - I'll just find somewhere I am welcome. Funny thing, everyone here is so accustomed to my hair that should I allow the black to regrow too much, I'm quickly informed I'm overdue to recolor. I live in the midwest where you'd normally expect the opposite reaction, but it's true.
Say what you want about body modification; your perspective is obviously not mine. But don't attempt to perpetuate an unsupported stereotype that anyone who looks different is somehow unprofessional. I don't memorize the outfits everyone has worn for the past month and comment when someone wears gasp the same thing two days in a row; it's irrelevant to who they are and their capabilities - I have better things to do with my time.
Maybe you should refrain from peering secretly over your cubicle walls in stark indignation that Steve the new coder has an eyebrow ring. Leave Steve alone and do your damn job, already. Oh, and next time, spell check your post: it looks more professional that way.;p
Yeah, I was wondering about that myself. Either standards for being cool are excessive, or someone is stretching the definition of "nerd" to better facilitate an exciting soundbite.
Which is why I like the old printers with Postscript support the best. Want to print? Send a postscript file to a JetDirect port, done. Drivers? I don't need no stinking drivers.
So, in other words, you are admitting to the biggest mistake any professional can possibly make. You stopped learning.
I believe this man said he did not stop learning, referencing a book on his to-read list. Unfortunately, telling an HR rep "I don't have 6-years doing development in J2EE, but I've developed 200k-line programs in seven other languages in three different architectures, two of which I designed myself with interactive flowcharts and API diagrams." simply means "I don't have 6-years doing J2EE development."
These days, it seems like HR could have a reincarnation of Einstein sitting in front of them, and as soon as they found out he only had four years direct experience with theoretical high-energy gluons as related to string theory interaction phasing, he'd be rejected. Why the hell does any job requirement need to be that specific? Why does anyone need to have mastered X-languge of the week if they already have experience with six others?
But hey, have fun hiring people who simply regurgitate textbooks. Good luck with that.
You know... I noticed something interesting while visiting Shedd Aquarium. Marine mammals can survive under water between breaths not because they merely hold their breath for long periods of time. It's because they exchange almost the entire volume of their lungs when they do breathe. Their muscles, blood, and other organs are also adapted to store vastly more oxygen, further offsetting anaerobic cell death.
I felt that this would be a major improvement to humans: more efficient oxygen utilization. Our eyes are vastly inferior to multitudes of other organisms as well. A good biologist could probably list hundreds, or even thousands of examples like this. If God is all powerful and created Man in his image, why are we composed of such shitty design, in general? Why do "lesser" creatures surpass us in any respect?
Intelligent Design proponents enjoy trotting out complicated biological blueprints as requiring a designer... but what about all of the bad design? I like to think God (or whatever) laid the foundations for the universe to perpetuate itself, negating the necessity to design and oversee everything it contained. Evolution and Religion do not have to be enemies... it seems like it's only we in the US that seem to think otherwise.
Maybe. Though I'd rather have evolution embraced and extended than subverted outright. The existance of the soul can't be proven anyway, so Catholicism is welcome to claim it.
In other words: Religion can have all the science it wants, but you can never base science on religion.
To be fair, take a good look at Europe. The Vatican has actually condoned evolution, and ascribe the domain of the soul to God. The whole "trying to debunk evolution" thing only happens here in the US. You'd think that Catholicism, one of the oldest, most entrenched and relatively pious sects of Christianity, would have more issues with evolution...
I'm almost waiting for the day when we declare the world flat, and the Sun revolves around the Earth; finally cementing our regression into a backwards society that accepts the Bible as Literal Truth.
I misspoke. I really meant to quit processing after sending the 304, which is basically the same thing in stuff like PHP.
So far as the diffs, I knew that would basically be impossible due to the currently dynamic nature of the web - I was just being flippant. ^_^ Just because something isn't feasable doesn't mean it's not better. Hehe.
Yeah, I was about to say that. HTTP/1.1 basically gained a foothold in 1997, so we've had the ability to do subrequests sans handshaking for at least the last 8 years. In addition, even if Google prefetches, you still have to get the images/whatever from Google, meaning more requests.
As a web developer, I've actually found that the best way to reduce page load time is highly aggressive caching - like telling the browser with headers to use a cached copy if it has one, and closing the connection. Most browser like this just fine, and it can be overridden if they *really* want a new copy.
Now what would make the web *really* fast would be some kind of CVS system, so the browser can say which version it has cached, and you send a diff to update to the most recent version. ^_^
Slashdot Mirror
I know it's between the branches. But if one party controlls all three branches, and all three branches are shaking hands and pushing the party agenda, guess what happens?
Which is actually part of the problem. Once you have party affiliation, you have obligations you need to fulfill, loyalties that need to be maintained. Stray too far from the party line, and you're toast. Few politicians will take this risk, and so the band plays on.
I wish we *didn't* have political parties, but it's a little late for that; the barn door on that has long since rotted away.
I voted for a Libertarian. My state is highly (70%+) Democratic. The guy the state voted for didn't win.
Besides, that is *not* the point. The problem is that the system is supposed to prevent the Tyrany of the Majority, but if the majority has enough influence, balance is shifted drastically. Even if we vote every 2/4 years, the voting record is likely to statistically match previous years. Barring some accidental catastrophe on the part of the Republicans, they've effectively dismantled any method of checking their power.
Aside from a few "unpatriotic crackpots," few actually see the problem with this, so it will continue until there's no backing out.
This isn't just about pissing off Democrats. With two branches of the government controlled by a single party, and SCOTUS heading that way, what's left to maintain the "checks and balances" so carefully built into the system by our founders?
Everyone should be leery at the implications of this. As a Libertarian, this really scares me.
Unfortunately this isn't really about SCOTUS bashing. The point here is that two branches of the government are already controlled by one party, and this latest retirement risks sending the final branch in that direction, depending on who Bush decides to appoint.
We already know the Republicans can, if push comes to shove, remove the filibuster option. Think about what this implies... Three branches of the government all controlled by a single party with a single (supposedly) agenda. What happens to checks and balances when there is no more balance, and checks become mere formalities?
When I was in IB in High School, we used Writers Inc. I had one of the old yellow hardback copies that don't seem to be around anymore, and I can't find it anywhere. Very good book on all various esoterica pertaining to writing.
Well, I had open-heart surgery in 1984 when I was seven years old. They installed a Dacron patch, corrected a valve, and repaired other minor defects. Stopping the heart isn't the hard part, getting it started again is. Fortunately I was one of the rare cases where the heart starts by itself when blood is reintroduced.
While this advancement obviously has interesting medical implications, I'm not so sure this is one of them.
Or a company can claim the local talent pool is insufficient, thereby driving down the prevailing wage. Get it now?
Why not? I did, after all, impregnate your mom. ;)
Scope
.$84.48 per gallon
;p
1.5 oz $0.99
Whaaaaat? Scope normally comes in 1L jugs for less than $5. Or if you search around, 50oz is roughly $4.50. That makes about $11.50 a gallon. Whoever compiled these numbers needs to quit using the tiny sampler bottles.
"Well you know, Brian, even ugly girls have pussies."
:(
Sadly, this is not always the case...
True. I keep waiting for it to become commonplace so people would get over it already. I mean, otherwise you could make the argument hot women with big breasts shouldn't work because they have a distracting influence on productivity. ;p If you don't stare, it's not a big deal.
Except if you're not trying to distinguish yourself. How other people look is basically irrelevant to me, so I try to return the favor. People need to grow up, seriously. Does the little chat you receive mean women with nice breasts can't be in business? Because men are likely to spend more time looking than listening?
Humanity is diverse; a little engineered difference hardly compares to that which already permeates the world already. There really are other things you could spend your time worrying about than how someone looks.
Preach on! I've had deep metallic blue hair for the past four years, a decision I made because I'm a big fan of the color. I'm not trying to be a revolutionary or break any damn molds; I just like blue. If someone likes it, good for them, but I don't care. If they equate me with inconceivably rude unprofessionalism, they need to grow up, but I still don't care. Maybe in twenty years it'll be commonplace and other people will also not care, but for now, I'm content my decision doesn't affect anyone else.
Life is too short to live for other people; screw 'em if they can't loosen up a little. I was a stuffy nose-in-the-book nerd all the way past college. It's amazing what some self-confidence does for a person; my only regret is that I didn't have it back then. I know the perspective of the other side, and having been there, I can almost definitely say it's wrong. Jesus, people... have some fun or you'll be in your death-bed in fifty years regretting you didn't.
Who cares what other people think - they're not you!
See, I'm a big fan of the color blue. I've been coloring my hair a deep metallic blue for the past four years. Everyone at work calls me the "blue-haired wonder" partially because I'm one of the two best coders here, and everyone has some kind of nickname. I pulled a triple major in three years back in my college days, and I learned enough Oracle to be an emergency DBA in about two weeks - a job I ended up keeping because I was better than the previous guy.
;p
I don't do this for anyone but myself. It takes a couple hours every two or three months to maintain; it's only a side effect other people even notice. I will not change my opinion or my life to accommodate outdated stereotypes - I'll just find somewhere I am welcome. Funny thing, everyone here is so accustomed to my hair that should I allow the black to regrow too much, I'm quickly informed I'm overdue to recolor. I live in the midwest where you'd normally expect the opposite reaction, but it's true.
Say what you want about body modification; your perspective is obviously not mine. But don't attempt to perpetuate an unsupported stereotype that anyone who looks different is somehow unprofessional. I don't memorize the outfits everyone has worn for the past month and comment when someone wears gasp the same thing two days in a row; it's irrelevant to who they are and their capabilities - I have better things to do with my time.
Maybe you should refrain from peering secretly over your cubicle walls in stark indignation that Steve the new coder has an eyebrow ring. Leave Steve alone and do your damn job, already. Oh, and next time, spell check your post: it looks more professional that way.
Well, there don't appear to be any "(Score:5, Funny)" comments attached to your post, so let me submit the first obligatory:
Will you marry me?
Yeah, I was wondering about that myself. Either standards for being cool are excessive, or someone is stretching the definition of "nerd" to better facilitate an exciting soundbite.
Which is why I like the old printers with Postscript support the best. Want to print? Send a postscript file to a JetDirect port, done. Drivers? I don't need no stinking drivers.
So, in other words, you are admitting to the biggest mistake any professional can possibly make. You stopped learning.
I believe this man said he did not stop learning, referencing a book on his to-read list. Unfortunately, telling an HR rep "I don't have 6-years doing development in J2EE, but I've developed 200k-line programs in seven other languages in three different architectures, two of which I designed myself with interactive flowcharts and API diagrams." simply means "I don't have 6-years doing J2EE development."
These days, it seems like HR could have a reincarnation of Einstein sitting in front of them, and as soon as they found out he only had four years direct experience with theoretical high-energy gluons as related to string theory interaction phasing, he'd be rejected. Why the hell does any job requirement need to be that specific? Why does anyone need to have mastered X-languge of the week if they already have experience with six others?
But hey, have fun hiring people who simply regurgitate textbooks. Good luck with that.
You know... I noticed something interesting while visiting Shedd Aquarium. Marine mammals can survive under water between breaths not because they merely hold their breath for long periods of time. It's because they exchange almost the entire volume of their lungs when they do breathe. Their muscles, blood, and other organs are also adapted to store vastly more oxygen, further offsetting anaerobic cell death.
I felt that this would be a major improvement to humans: more efficient oxygen utilization. Our eyes are vastly inferior to multitudes of other organisms as well. A good biologist could probably list hundreds, or even thousands of examples like this. If God is all powerful and created Man in his image, why are we composed of such shitty design, in general? Why do "lesser" creatures surpass us in any respect?
Intelligent Design proponents enjoy trotting out complicated biological blueprints as requiring a designer... but what about all of the bad design? I like to think God (or whatever) laid the foundations for the universe to perpetuate itself, negating the necessity to design and oversee everything it contained. Evolution and Religion do not have to be enemies... it seems like it's only we in the US that seem to think otherwise.
Maybe. Though I'd rather have evolution embraced and extended than subverted outright. The existance of the soul can't be proven anyway, so Catholicism is welcome to claim it.
In other words: Religion can have all the science it wants, but you can never base science on religion.
To be fair, take a good look at Europe. The Vatican has actually condoned evolution, and ascribe the domain of the soul to God. The whole "trying to debunk evolution" thing only happens here in the US. You'd think that Catholicism, one of the oldest, most entrenched and relatively pious sects of Christianity, would have more issues with evolution...
I'm almost waiting for the day when we declare the world flat, and the Sun revolves around the Earth; finally cementing our regression into a backwards society that accepts the Bible as Literal Truth.
I misspoke. I really meant to quit processing after sending the 304, which is basically the same thing in stuff like PHP.
So far as the diffs, I knew that would basically be impossible due to the currently dynamic nature of the web - I was just being flippant. ^_^ Just because something isn't feasable doesn't mean it's not better. Hehe.
Yeah, I was about to say that. HTTP/1.1 basically gained a foothold in 1997, so we've had the ability to do subrequests sans handshaking for at least the last 8 years. In addition, even if Google prefetches, you still have to get the images/whatever from Google, meaning more requests.
As a web developer, I've actually found that the best way to reduce page load time is highly aggressive caching - like telling the browser with headers to use a cached copy if it has one, and closing the connection. Most browser like this just fine, and it can be overridden if they *really* want a new copy.
Now what would make the web *really* fast would be some kind of CVS system, so the browser can say which version it has cached, and you send a diff to update to the most recent version. ^_^
Not bad for having such a high Slash ID. ^_^