If it's a personal address, I don't think it matters. But I do consider addresses like CompanyName@isp.net or CompanyName_PersonsName@isp.net to appear somewhat unprofessional and indicative of an immature, unestablished business. Business addresses should always be SomeFormOfPersonsName@CompanyName.com, IMO. Similarly with websites like www.CompanyName.isp.net or www.isp.net/CompanyName, etc. These days, it's easy enough to obtain Web space and mailboxes @CompanyName.com that there's no excuse not to.
...or to be available to answer questions, or try out a new UI screen or feature and give feedback, or to act as a sounding board (if the manager is competent to do that), etc. but DON'T HOVER.
Our ancestors had a network of rails all over the U.S. which acted as the backbone of the nation during the 1800s and early 1900s. Then in the 1930 and 40s they abandoned them. Why?
Well, the fact that the road network is nearly fully state-sponsored may have something to do with it...see e.g. Interstate Highway system.
[facepalm] Did you even read your own citation? Like that part that says "Interstate Highways usually receive substantial federal funding (90% federal and 10% state)"?
Most other states probably wouldn't have the numbers of people to justify building it. Imagine a state in the midwest asking for 5 billion so that the tiny train riding population can ride in style. Ya right. So if by any state you mean New York and surrounding area then yes.
You most likely have not lived east of the Mississippi. There are HUGE swaths of populations that could use fast, convenient mass transportation. Not just New York and "surrounding areas." Think the entire eastern seaboard. Think Chicago to New York. Think St. Louis to Atlanta. Don't think they're big enough? Check the size of these metropolitan areas and some of the cities running between them.
How about rebuilding the Northeast Corridor (and building missing sections e.g. from New Haven to Boston) so we can have true high-speed rail that could serve as many as 50 million people? How many people would this California train serve - 10, 20 million at most?
That's a definite flaw in our legal system: someone has to be abused (at least) once before the courts can rule.
But the courts are not the only avenue. If people felt strongly enough about it, they could have tried to get a bill together in the MA legislature.
Besides, how much free time do you think the courts have? Aren't they spending their time hearing actual cases? When are they supposed to find the time to think about legal issues that might arise in the future?
Your blind anti-Americanism is verging on ridiculous, and I say this as a Brit.
You say that as though Brits were the champions of blind anti-Americanism. As though we didn't have some kind of... special relationship, or something.
So if the EU passes a Free Speech law, Germany's decades-long censorship of "Nazi" and swastikas will be overturned by the central government? Hmmm. No wonder the EU Constitution got voted down.
I don't know how it works in the EU; California, in case you hadn't heard, is in the United States, not Europe. But if you ask me, yes, that's how it should work; otherwise, what the hell good is the EU?
Free Speech is an inalienable right, not something doled out to you by a friendly Governmental overlord. Nice try though.
Nonsense. The only rights that exist, belong to those people who are willing to stand up and say they have those rights, and are willing to defend them against those who would take them away. They are only "inalienable" to the extent that We the People agree that they are, and empower our "friendly governmental overlords" to enshrine them in law and protect them by force (or, if you're an anarchist, are willing to protect them by force on your own). Anything else is rose-colored-glasses wishful thinking.
They weren't against government using tax revenue to produce public goods, like roads, bridges, ferries, public fountains, orphanages, public schools, etc.
...military-industrial complexes, space programs, 60% stakes in car companies, healthcare, a worldwide police role, etc...? The problem with being in favor of the government producing "public goods" is that it's a slippery slope - without a very precise and unambiguous definition of "public good", and strong checks and limitations on how far the government should take this, their involvement will naturally grow and grow, into Leviathan.
Considering Ayn Rand hated libertarians, that's an odd juxtaposition!
She was disappointed in the libertarian "movement" because she thought they did not focus enough on a consistent philosophical basis for their political views. That doesn't mean she necessarily disagreed with those views, themselves. In any case, she still thought more highly of their politics, from what I recall, than those of the two major parties. And I cannot help but think that she would detest the modern-day neocon Republicans just as thoroughly as she would today's socialist-wannabe Democrats.
Slashdot Mirror
Beer and hookers, same as anyplace else.
If it's a personal address, I don't think it matters. But I do consider addresses like CompanyName@isp.net or CompanyName_PersonsName@isp.net to appear somewhat unprofessional and indicative of an immature, unestablished business. Business addresses should always be SomeFormOfPersonsName@CompanyName.com, IMO. Similarly with websites like www.CompanyName.isp.net or www.isp.net/CompanyName, etc. These days, it's easy enough to obtain Web space and mailboxes @CompanyName.com that there's no excuse not to.
No, <stallone>you're the disease, and I'm the cure.</stallone>
...or to be available to answer questions, or try out a new UI screen or feature and give feedback, or to act as a sounding board (if the manager is competent to do that), etc. but DON'T HOVER .
I dunno, John Belushi said it was the Germans...
My password is ********.
Yo!! That's my tag!! Now everyone's gonna cop my 8-star password! I was an *original* and you're so trippin me down!! What gives!!
8 stars? That's the kind of password an idiot would use on his luggage!
That would clearly cause conflict with their mission as a public service.
Once upon a time, all corporations were viewed as having a public service responsibility. [sigh]
But will it go 88 miles per hour?
If their cells can stay healthy and reproduce without degradation, then why would they become invalids, or even have to retire?
Um, how does your using a potentially confusing term ("state" in a discussion involving these United States) make me a "noob", coward?
Well, the fact that the road network is nearly fully state-sponsored may have something to do with it...see e.g. Interstate Highway system.
[facepalm] Did you even read your own citation? Like that part that says "Interstate Highways usually receive substantial federal funding (90% federal and 10% state)"?
You most likely have not lived east of the Mississippi. There are HUGE swaths of populations that could use fast, convenient mass transportation. Not just New York and "surrounding areas." Think the entire eastern seaboard. Think Chicago to New York. Think St. Louis to Atlanta. Don't think they're big enough? Check the size of these metropolitan areas and some of the cities running between them.
How about rebuilding the Northeast Corridor (and building missing sections e.g. from New Haven to Boston) so we can have true high-speed rail that could serve as many as 50 million people? How many people would this California train serve - 10, 20 million at most?
That's a definite flaw in our legal system: someone has to be abused (at least) once before the courts can rule.
But the courts are not the only avenue. If people felt strongly enough about it, they could have tried to get a bill together in the MA legislature.
Besides, how much free time do you think the courts have? Aren't they spending their time hearing actual cases? When are they supposed to find the time to think about legal issues that might arise in the future?
Your blind anti-Americanism is verging on ridiculous, and I say this as a Brit.
You say that as though Brits were the champions of blind anti-Americanism. As though we didn't have some kind of... special relationship, or something.
I'm surprised he didn't misspell "Anonymous Coward".
I'm not sure why everyone keeps bringing this up.
Then you have no soul.
Ah, if we don't share your particular fetish for old stuff, we have no soul. Check.
So if the EU passes a Free Speech law, Germany's decades-long censorship of "Nazi" and swastikas will be overturned by the central government? Hmmm. No wonder the EU Constitution got voted down.
I don't know how it works in the EU; California, in case you hadn't heard, is in the United States, not Europe. But if you ask me, yes, that's how it should work; otherwise, what the hell good is the EU?
Free Speech is an inalienable right, not something doled out to you by a friendly Governmental overlord. Nice try though.
Nonsense. The only rights that exist, belong to those people who are willing to stand up and say they have those rights, and are willing to defend them against those who would take them away. They are only "inalienable" to the extent that We the People agree that they are, and empower our "friendly governmental overlords" to enshrine them in law and protect them by force (or, if you're an anarchist, are willing to protect them by force on your own). Anything else is rose-colored-glasses wishful thinking.
you should probably rethink that statement some, nazi socialism is as valad a government platform as any other
You seem to imply that all political platforms are equally valid. Not everyone would agree with you.
Because auto emissions are not a First Amendment issue; swastikas are.
They weren't against government using tax revenue to produce public goods, like roads, bridges, ferries, public fountains, orphanages, public schools, etc.
...military-industrial complexes, space programs, 60% stakes in car companies, healthcare, a worldwide police role, etc...? The problem with being in favor of the government producing "public goods" is that it's a slippery slope - without a very precise and unambiguous definition of "public good", and strong checks and limitations on how far the government should take this, their involvement will naturally grow and grow, into Leviathan.
Considering Ayn Rand hated libertarians, that's an odd juxtaposition!
She was disappointed in the libertarian "movement" because she thought they did not focus enough on a consistent philosophical basis for their political views. That doesn't mean she necessarily disagreed with those views, themselves. In any case, she still thought more highly of their politics, from what I recall, than those of the two major parties. And I cannot help but think that she would detest the modern-day neocon Republicans just as thoroughly as she would today's socialist-wannabe Democrats.
Mr. Whirly is right. If a human gets hit by this, he's dead -- his brain gets coagulated.
Well, if that's what we're looking to accomplish, all we have to do is bomb the enemy with Jaegermeister.
I meant the reflections. Are they willing to blind anyone within eyesight?
If the enemy is stupid enough to try this tactic, don't they get what they deserve? Nobody put a gun to their heads... oh, wait.
No actually the axis of a moronic white pig who happens to be convinced that his nation is not EVIL despite a history of slavery, racism and conquest.
Uh, what was that about racism again?