Farscape had a slightly different issue - it was already an expensive show, and then Syfy acquired another expensive show, Stargate SG-1. Unfortunately, they decided they only wanted to support one, and they had just spent all the money to acquire the new property, so...
I've found it to be related to the work and pay, honestly.
I make less then I could in the area, but in return I also have decent time off, as well as taking longer breaks and lunches. If I decide to show up late or go home early every once in awhile, it doesn't get discussed. Honestly, it doesn't even get noticed most of the time.
But I also make less then I could in this area. I know it, my employer knows it, the headhunters in the area certainly know it. I've had discussions with other companies who offer more, but the expectations are also much, much more strict regarding the work schedule, and so far the money hasn't been worth the extra hassle.
The question is: How many people actually remember those links, vs just going to google and typing in "Ford Fusion" and clicking the long hyperlink. In essence, are these top level domains going to change how the majority of people get to places?
By comparison, I started work at my current employer and within a year they cut an entire department because I actually started using the database software to (some of) it's potential. Where they once had three people dig through records for a few days to find something, I can query the db in a matter of minutes (hours if its a complicated query and I have to really stretch my SQL knowledge).
If I didn't have other stuff to do, they could probably cut my full time position down to being a consultant, too.
The camera app is likely required because Windows 10 has facial recognition for logon. You can use it with both tablet (built-in camera) and deskop (usb camera).
Out of curiosity, how does that work with facial hair? If I set up facial recognition while clean shaven, does it update each day while my beard grows out?
Will it not recognize me if I shave after having grown out a beard?
How adaptive is this technology, and at what point does it stop being useful (either too sensitive to changes, or not enough) ?
Additionally, companies can fight against former employees drawing from that insurance. Many do.
A few years ago, it was a big thing for companies to allow the former employee to draw from it initially, then contest the former employee's right to do so, saying they were ineligible due to XYZ reason (how they were let go, irregularities, etc.). There were entire companies whose only job was to stop former employees of large companies from drawing on unemployeement.
As I recall, they were also involved in some shady practices (setting up meetings they had no intention, or even personal available, to go to), and ended up being shut down by several state governments.
Well, it's clearly Schrodinger's Millenial - capable of running the business and implementing terrible practices, but also too lazy and hipster-ish to get a job and work their way up.
Well, we'd probably know more if people would stop scare mongering about genetic engineering causing the apocalypse all the time. There's too much anti-science fear about everything, and it needs to stop getting in the way of actual learning and advancement.
If you are trying to point out that his taxes subsidize the cable companies there, let me be the bearer of bad news - so do ours (in America). We just don't get to see the benefit.
The first one is more yelling into the wind. When they learn to quote sources, they can pretend to have an educated opinion.
The second one we can discuss. With regards to Nazi Germany, I'm not sure how they come to the conclusion that the 1928 and 1938 laws "added restrictions", when before German citizens were supposed to be completely disarmed.
Four days after Hitler's triumphant Anschluss of Austria in March 1938, the Nazis finally enacted their own firearms laws. Additional controls were layered on the 1928 Weimar law: Persons under eighteen were forbidden to buy firearms or ammunition; a special permit was introduced for handguns;
Persons under twenty were forbidden under the 1928 law. The 1938 law lowered restrictions. So how, exactly, does the 1938 law increase controls onto the 1928 law by allowing more people to buy weapons?
More to the point, this isn't civilian gun confiscation, which was the premise of the poster. These laws are controls on gun ownership, sure, but I'm not seeing them grabbing up weapons from the populace, do you?
Also, why am I providing references to refute a claim made by someone who didn't provide references to his claim that "Every government-sponsored genocide in the 20th century was preceded by civilian gun confiscation"? Shouldn't the original point have some sort of reference to back it up?
That line is used a lot by people who don't do their research.
The Nazi's actually fought against gun control and introduced legislation to reduce the barriers for Germans to get guns - see the Law on Firearms and Ammunition of 1928, or the 1938 German Weapons Act. Both of which EXPANDED gun rights.
So, since I've already proven that not "Every government-sponsored genocide in the 20th century was preceded by civilian gun confiscation", I could probably stop, but just to continue real quick.
Stalin actively armed his populace and used mass violence as a tactic to control the populace.
Many of the genocides in Africa have had no gun control, or for that matter, legal involvement of any sort, since they've basically been tribal warfare.
So, go read some history, and then try to stop repeating things you read on the internet.
No, the problem is that we aren't talking about police following proper procedure.
We're talking about police who decide to shoot people because they "felt" something tug on their gun, and decide that the individual who is handcuffed, on the ground, unresisting, needs to be shot.
Oh, that tugging on the gun was the officer bumping up against the car window? My bad. Well, he "felt" threatened, so we'll give him 2 weeks off paid vacation and then clear him of all possible wrong doings within 48 hours. Because, you know, it's all handled in house. Can't have people outside the department looking in here, ho ho ho.
I'll believe that the majority of police follow proper procedure when the "good" cops stop protecting and closing ranks around the "bad" cops. Which right now, isn't happening. Instead, the "bad" cops can do whatever, then go hide at the station, where they will be protected from any form of consequence.
Does that include the banking crisis, which was caused by a reduction of regulation and oversight, allowing them to get away with figurative murder on housing?
The arguments against include pathological and often criminal behavior in his administration on par with the worst in US history, remarkably bad legislative and regulatory efforts, terrible economic policy, terrible foreign policy, and a larger than normal number of unanimous Supreme Court defeats for blatantly unconstitutional practices.
I thought we weren't talking about Bush's time in office.
That's not mathematically sound. If there are infinite number of world, then saying that not everyone is inhabited does not reduce the number of world to a finite number. It could still easily be infinite number of world, with an infinite number of inhabited ones.
Infinity is a difficult to understand concept for many people.
Slashdot Mirror
Farscape had a slightly different issue - it was already an expensive show, and then Syfy acquired another expensive show, Stargate SG-1. Unfortunately, they decided they only wanted to support one, and they had just spent all the money to acquire the new property, so...
I've found it to be related to the work and pay, honestly.
I make less then I could in the area, but in return I also have decent time off, as well as taking longer breaks and lunches. If I decide to show up late or go home early every once in awhile, it doesn't get discussed. Honestly, it doesn't even get noticed most of the time.
But I also make less then I could in this area. I know it, my employer knows it, the headhunters in the area certainly know it. I've had discussions with other companies who offer more, but the expectations are also much, much more strict regarding the work schedule, and so far the money hasn't been worth the extra hassle.
The question is: How many people actually remember those links, vs just going to google and typing in "Ford Fusion" and clicking the long hyperlink. In essence, are these top level domains going to change how the majority of people get to places?
By comparison, I started work at my current employer and within a year they cut an entire department because I actually started using the database software to (some of) it's potential. Where they once had three people dig through records for a few days to find something, I can query the db in a matter of minutes (hours if its a complicated query and I have to really stretch my SQL knowledge).
If I didn't have other stuff to do, they could probably cut my full time position down to being a consultant, too.
That seems like the mother of all confirmation bias.
Seeing as how if it had happened, none of us would be here to have this conversation...
The camera app is likely required because Windows 10 has facial recognition for logon. You can use it with both tablet (built-in camera) and deskop (usb camera).
Out of curiosity, how does that work with facial hair? If I set up facial recognition while clean shaven, does it update each day while my beard grows out?
Will it not recognize me if I shave after having grown out a beard?
How adaptive is this technology, and at what point does it stop being useful (either too sensitive to changes, or not enough) ?
Additionally, companies can fight against former employees drawing from that insurance. Many do.
A few years ago, it was a big thing for companies to allow the former employee to draw from it initially, then contest the former employee's right to do so, saying they were ineligible due to XYZ reason (how they were let go, irregularities, etc.). There were entire companies whose only job was to stop former employees of large companies from drawing on unemployeement.
As I recall, they were also involved in some shady practices (setting up meetings they had no intention, or even personal available, to go to), and ended up being shut down by several state governments.
So, you'd rather support Stargate then Battlestar. Got it.
You should talk to a historian first. Got some prospective on what he's saying.
Nobody is making the argument that life isn't better than 50 years ago.
Looks at GP.
We've spent the last 50 years on the Great Society and are either worse off, or not any better than we were 50 years ago...
Seems like someone made that argument.
Well, it's clearly Schrodinger's Millenial - capable of running the business and implementing terrible practices, but also too lazy and hipster-ish to get a job and work their way up.
For their pocket change? If they don't decide to mess with you?
He isn't. Microsoft already has papers written up with that idea in mind.
Well, we'd probably know more if people would stop scare mongering about genetic engineering causing the apocalypse all the time. There's too much anti-science fear about everything, and it needs to stop getting in the way of actual learning and advancement.
If you are trying to point out that his taxes subsidize the cable companies there, let me be the bearer of bad news - so do ours (in America). We just don't get to see the benefit.
Privatize profits, socialize losses and all that.
So, not voting for either of the two major parties, huh?
The first one is more yelling into the wind. When they learn to quote sources, they can pretend to have an educated opinion.
The second one we can discuss. With regards to Nazi Germany, I'm not sure how they come to the conclusion that the 1928 and 1938 laws "added restrictions", when before German citizens were supposed to be completely disarmed.
Four days after Hitler's triumphant Anschluss of Austria in March 1938, the Nazis finally enacted their own firearms laws. Additional controls were layered on the 1928 Weimar law: Persons under eighteen were forbidden to buy firearms or ammunition; a special permit was introduced for handguns;
Persons under twenty were forbidden under the 1928 law. The 1938 law lowered restrictions. So how, exactly, does the 1938 law increase controls onto the 1928 law by allowing more people to buy weapons?
More to the point, this isn't civilian gun confiscation, which was the premise of the poster. These laws are controls on gun ownership, sure, but I'm not seeing them grabbing up weapons from the populace, do you?
Also, why am I providing references to refute a claim made by someone who didn't provide references to his claim that "Every government-sponsored genocide in the 20th century was preceded by civilian gun confiscation"? Shouldn't the original point have some sort of reference to back it up?
Can you provide substantiating references to the bat-shit crazy claims you are making?
"...see the Law on Firearms and Ammunition of 1928, or the 1938 German Weapons Act. Both of which EXPANDED gun rights."
Has functional illiteracy really gotten this bad? I guess I shouldn't be surprised, considering it's an AC.
That line is used a lot by people who don't do their research.
The Nazi's actually fought against gun control and introduced legislation to reduce the barriers for Germans to get guns - see the Law on Firearms and Ammunition of 1928, or the 1938 German Weapons Act. Both of which EXPANDED gun rights.
So, since I've already proven that not "Every government-sponsored genocide in the 20th century was preceded by civilian gun confiscation", I could probably stop, but just to continue real quick.
Stalin actively armed his populace and used mass violence as a tactic to control the populace.
Many of the genocides in Africa have had no gun control, or for that matter, legal involvement of any sort, since they've basically been tribal warfare.
So, go read some history, and then try to stop repeating things you read on the internet.
We're talking about police who decide to shoot people because they "felt" something tug on their gun, and decide that the individual who is handcuffed, on the ground, unresisting, needs to be shot.
Oh, that tugging on the gun was the officer bumping up against the car window? My bad. Well, he "felt" threatened, so we'll give him 2 weeks off paid vacation and then clear him of all possible wrong doings within 48 hours. Because, you know, it's all handled in house. Can't have people outside the department looking in here, ho ho ho.
I'll believe that the majority of police follow proper procedure when the "good" cops stop protecting and closing ranks around the "bad" cops. Which right now, isn't happening. Instead, the "bad" cops can do whatever, then go hide at the station, where they will be protected from any form of consequence.
Does that include the banking crisis, which was caused by a reduction of regulation and oversight, allowing them to get away with figurative murder on housing?
The arguments against include pathological and often criminal behavior in his administration on par with the worst in US history, remarkably bad legislative and regulatory efforts, terrible economic policy, terrible foreign policy, and a larger than normal number of unanimous Supreme Court defeats for blatantly unconstitutional practices.
I thought we weren't talking about Bush's time in office.
After all, if you have nothing to hide, why not post under your own name...
Infinity is a difficult to understand concept for many people.