These folks learn the classics, but then go out and are forced to make a living by making new editions of Twilight, Hunger Games, etc. As a bonus, they're not allowed (by edict and budget) to change more than 25% of the nouns (in aggregate, not as categories).
True, but every new Linux user will start demanding either that the OEMs stop bundling Windows, find one more amenable to their requests, or they'll start building their own boxes.
It also means that each new Linux user isn't buying MS Office, using IE, or all the other bits and bobs that Microsoft also sells.
You gotta eat that elephant one bite at a time, yanno?
You'd be right if it wasn't for that prohibition against "cruel and unusual" punishments in the US Constitution. I suspect that other countries in the First World have similar clauses, no?
Wanna stigmatize someone for life? Fine. Keep 'em locked up for life, or apply the death penalty.
And before you bring it up - most states even allow felons to buy firearms after a period of time has passed, and the ex-con can apply for the right (after proving that he/she has not been arrested in the interim).
Sure, people still get murdered, that's not going to go away, but it's a hell of a lot easier to kill 26 people in a short period of time with a gun than with a knife
I mean, if we're talking just about reducing killer efficiency here, they why haven't we banned/controlled fertilizer, diesel fuel, and rent-a-trucks?
As another argument, consider that 9/11 involved box cutters and airplanes. The resulting outcry over that one gave us the TSA. Do you really want that agency (or one like it) having control over *anything* outside of an airport?
I figure once a few of those members have protesters of their own driving to Westboro, KS and showing up at their homes, schools, and everywhere they go, maybe they'll get the hint and STFU? Once their mailboxes get the Ralsky Treatment (Gay pr0n suggested, of course), maybe they'll get the hint and realize that maybe harassment is a bad thing?
Reject any management candidate who has job-hopping in their history. If they spent less than 2 years or so in their last three positions and the companies they worked for are still around, odds are good there's a reason behind all that shuffling, and it indicates that said manager never really got to know his or her team that well.
Better idea - ask about management style, then count the buzzwords. Deduct 10 points for each buzzword, and reject the candidate when the score drops by 50.
In all seriousness though, HR is probably going to ride shotgun over the whole process, and they will most likely provide the article submitter with guidelines (usually that STAR thingy, where you ask questions like "...tell me about a time when you were frustrated with another employee during a project, and how you overcame it to meet the project goals.")
What I would do is not only ask similar questions, but pay very close attention to body language, personality, and suchlike. Be sure to throw in questions that make him/her squirm and think a little, to see how they react. Maybe make him write a script/program/etc or two while you're at it to see how proficient the person is.
The current US Supreme Court with it's majority of pro-corporatist right-wing ideologues can not have it's back up against the wall because they are the wall.
This is the same "pro-corporatist right-wing" Supreme Court that allowed Obamacare to stand, right?
Sometimes the stupid left-right political paradigm just doesn't work when it comes to explaining things. The sooner you figure that out...
Really? I have a challenge for you. Name me one moral act performed by a religious person that could not have been performed by that person without their religion.
Praying the rosary in the full belief that doing so will assist a recently departed soul into Heaven.
Now where is Mr. Hitchens' estate? I have a check to collect.;)
Whatever energy the collectors collect is energy that is not left there. Gigantic farms are going to move a lot of energy away from a place.
Photovoltaic conversion doesn't convert heat to energy, but instead converts light to energy. As a matter of fact, heat is something that you want to avoid too much of, since increased heat degrades cell efficiency.
Meanwhile, the generated heat is still there where it fell, and isn't going anywhere that it otherwise wouldn't go. Any Newtonian-based heat deficit would be some damned-near infinitesimal percentage at absolute best, and most likely contrived.
Well, first, plants are life too. Huge farms are going to kill lots of plants.
Please stop weaseling... you said that solar panels would kill *all* life underneath it. That is simply not true (if it were, putting one on a house rooftop would be rather hazardous to the occupants underneath, now wouldn't it?) And unless you can cough up some sort of proof, your latest iteration of this charge isn't all that much better.
And I call bullshit on this one. Deserts are full of life and are fragile ecosystems. Filling a desert with panels would wreck havoc on them.
Deserts do have life, but not that much plant life... at least not enough to worry about when designing or building a solar array.
The main criticism of nuclear is about risk of an accident. What happens if your microwave energy beam from space mis-fires?
Slashdot Mirror
It's even worse than that.
These folks learn the classics, but then go out and are forced to make a living by making new editions of Twilight, Hunger Games, etc. As a bonus, they're not allowed (by edict and budget) to change more than 25% of the nouns (in aggregate, not as categories).
True, but every new Linux user will start demanding either that the OEMs stop bundling Windows, find one more amenable to their requests, or they'll start building their own boxes.
It also means that each new Linux user isn't buying MS Office, using IE, or all the other bits and bobs that Microsoft also sells.
You gotta eat that elephant one bite at a time, yanno?
Not even having to do with possession of child pornography. Think of people caught urinating in a public alley, to borrow one of numerous examples.
We do the same in the US for those proven "not guilty by reason of insanity", but being proven to be insane is pretty hard to do.
You'd be right if it wasn't for that prohibition against "cruel and unusual" punishments in the US Constitution. I suspect that other countries in the First World have similar clauses, no?
Wanna stigmatize someone for life? Fine. Keep 'em locked up for life, or apply the death penalty.
And before you bring it up - most states even allow felons to buy firearms after a period of time has passed, and the ex-con can apply for the right (after proving that he/she has not been arrested in the interim).
A clue you may have missed: not all people with the title "sex offender" was caught doing bad things to children, or even to other human beings.
If the label were applied only to those who sexually assaulted children, then you might have had a point.
Sure, people still get murdered, that's not going to go away, but it's a hell of a lot easier to kill 26 people in a short period of time with a gun than with a knife
...so, how many guns did Timothy McVeigh use?
I mean, if we're talking just about reducing killer efficiency here, they why haven't we banned/controlled fertilizer, diesel fuel, and rent-a-trucks?
As another argument, consider that 9/11 involved box cutters and airplanes. The resulting outcry over that one gave us the TSA. Do you really want that agency (or one like it) having control over *anything* outside of an airport?
It's not like Dell hasn't wandered into markets before and failed miserably
Of course sometimes they just don't know when to quit.
Eventually, they'll get the hint and just focus on making servers and business workstations...
I dunno...
I figure once a few of those members have protesters of their own driving to Westboro, KS and showing up at their homes, schools, and everywhere they go, maybe they'll get the hint and STFU? Once their mailboxes get the Ralsky Treatment (Gay pr0n suggested, of course), maybe they'll get the hint and realize that maybe harassment is a bad thing?
Reject any management candidate who has job-hopping in their history. If they spent less than 2 years or so in their last three positions and the companies they worked for are still around, odds are good there's a reason behind all that shuffling, and it indicates that said manager never really got to know his or her team that well.
Better idea - ask about management style, then count the buzzwords. Deduct 10 points for each buzzword, and reject the candidate when the score drops by 50.
In all seriousness though, HR is probably going to ride shotgun over the whole process, and they will most likely provide the article submitter with guidelines (usually that STAR thingy, where you ask questions like "...tell me about a time when you were frustrated with another employee during a project, and how you overcame it to meet the project goals.")
What I would do is not only ask similar questions, but pay very close attention to body language, personality, and suchlike. Be sure to throw in questions that make him/her squirm and think a little, to see how they react. Maybe make him write a script/program/etc or two while you're at it to see how proficient the person is.
You don't want that.
Sure, sounds like it'd be fun, sleeping with the boss and all. At least until you break up.
The current US Supreme Court with it's majority of pro-corporatist right-wing ideologues can not have it's back up against the wall because they are the wall.
This is the same "pro-corporatist right-wing" Supreme Court that allowed Obamacare to stand, right?
Sometimes the stupid left-right political paradigm just doesn't work when it comes to explaining things. The sooner you figure that out...
Too many eyeballs by then. The gulags were opened at a time where man-made recon satellites didn't exist.
Not sure if there would be time to deploy the military shuttle thing... especially if this satellite starts dragging on the upper atmosphere.
The betting pool is now open as to where it'll re-enter. At 100kg or so, I'm not certain it'll survive the trip back down, but bits of it might.
*ahem*: ...and so on...
Point the first
Point the second
Point the third (and mind the Cryllic - Chrome should translate it)
Point the fourth
Point the fifth
The USSR made it a point to suppress (and eventually try to eliminate) religion, as Marxism wouldn't have room for it.
Problem is, Fundie Muslims have more in common with Stalin's Russia than either have to do with stamp collectors.
FYI: The USSR was officially and actively atheist.
I don't have to - the act was saying the requisite prayers, on that particular device, while carrying that belief.
QED. ;)
He's referencing the Carl Sagan episode on the library of Alexandria.
Truth is, the library went down four different times... two of which had less to do with any religious motive than with foreign conquest.
The last time it went down was, well... during the initial Muslim conquest of Egypt.
To paraphrase Trotsky:
You may not be interested in Fundamentalist Islam, but Fundamentalist Islam is certainly interested in you.
The sooner everyone realizes this...
Really? I have a challenge for you. Name me one moral act performed by a religious person that could not have been performed by that person without their religion.
Praying the rosary in the full belief that doing so will assist a recently departed soul into Heaven.
Now where is Mr. Hitchens' estate? I have a check to collect. ;)
I wish more people actually knew about KMFDM enough to get the reference...
Ah well.
...or a spinoff from a band that sucks.
(for the clueless: I have their entire discography.)
...as long as the accents are understandable, because what we have now is atrocious. :(
Whatever energy the collectors collect is energy that is not left there. Gigantic farms are going to move a lot of energy away from a place.
Photovoltaic conversion doesn't convert heat to energy, but instead converts light to energy. As a matter of fact, heat is something that you want to avoid too much of, since increased heat degrades cell efficiency.
Meanwhile, the generated heat is still there where it fell, and isn't going anywhere that it otherwise wouldn't go. Any Newtonian-based heat deficit would be some damned-near infinitesimal percentage at absolute best, and most likely contrived.
Well, first, plants are life too. Huge farms are going to kill lots of plants.
Please stop weaseling... you said that solar panels would kill *all* life underneath it. That is simply not true (if it were, putting one on a house rooftop would be rather hazardous to the occupants underneath, now wouldn't it?) And unless you can cough up some sort of proof, your latest iteration of this charge isn't all that much better.
And I call bullshit on this one. Deserts are full of life and are fragile ecosystems. Filling a desert with panels would wreck havoc on them.
Deserts do have life, but not that much plant life... at least not enough to worry about when designing or building a solar array.
The main criticism of nuclear is about risk of an accident. What happens if your microwave energy beam from space mis-fires?
You may want to look this up before talking any further about it
TL;DR: I wouldn't recommend sunbathing for hours on end under one, but it certainly won't turn you into a two-legged burrito.