Close. You don't get to live in a free society without being required to contribute something to it. As I said elsewhere, the book was explicit about *Federal* service being a requirement for citizenship, not *military* service. He did make the distinction. He also made the distinction that the only real benefit to citizenship over being a civilian was being able to vote. The main character's father was a very successful businessman, but he was not a citizen.
Considering the way people on/. routinely blast voting it's pretty damn hypocritical to now use that as an excuse to attack the author and his book.
If that's really what you thought then maybe you should try actually reading the book. The book was explicit that *military* service was *not* a requirement for citizenship. *Federal* service was. If you think the two are the same...
Oh, we're going to have this discussion again. Okay, I'll play. You see drivers texting and putting on make-up. I see cyclists riding in the pedestrian crosswalk, riding against the flow of traffic, maneuvering around slowing/stopped vehicles, and they never EVER use hand signals to indicate a turn or stop. And most of them don't use required safety equipment, let alone the recommended ones.
In aviation, more maneuverable aircraft yield right-of-way to less maneuverable aircraft. Though not actually codified, this is generally true in automotive. No one argues with the 18-wheeler. Then it breaks down when cyclists expect everyone to move for them (and this is the exact argument another gentlemen here was making the other day when claiming it's the driver's responsibility to adjust *their* behavior to accommodate cyclists).
Maybe motorcycles and bicycles should also be automated. I mean, fair is fair.
If those municipalities are relying on traffic tickets for revenue then they're doing it wrong. Citations and fines for traffic infractions are supposed to discourage bad driving, not raise money for the gov't.
We're a distributed work force. I use my personal cell phone for company business and receive reimbursement that covers about 2/3 the monthly cost. Amusingly, about 4/5 of its usage is business-related. I have a vehicle allowance, but I pay all upkeep, fuel that is not explicitly work-related, registration, and insurance. When I need to print out work papers, it's on my personal printer, and I receive no reimbursement for it. Nor am I reimbursed for my internet usage, and I do use it (a very, very tiny bit) for work, while on a company-provided laptop. I also store parts in my garage. And some of my tools are mine personally, and some are company-provided (I've been known to use their tools to fix my car, which I feel is fair since I use my tools to fix their equipment).
I wear a pager for work (hospital environment). When there, everyone knows exactly why I'm checking it immediately if it goes off. When there or elsewhere, I apologize for checking it by saying, "Sorry, I'm on call. I need to check this." Usually they ask if I need to take it. If I don't, I tell them someone else will get it (we blast to the entire group). If I do, I tell them I'll get it when we're finished. Yes, the stuff I work on is that time critical. 5 minutes can be, and has been, the difference between getting the parts I need that day and getting them back up, or them being down an extra day. I think the key is to tell your audience what's going on instead of just tuning them out.
Your continued presence implies that that they do deserve your undivided attention. If you don't wish for this to be the case then you should excuse yourself and leave.
I told the longer version of this joke (bus driver instead of pilot) to a friend who's father had passed a few days before. (yes, I asked if I could make a joke). He started laughing. Way more than appropriate. Turns out his dad actually was a bus driver. (but no, that's not how/where he died).
Why would I howl about that? We don't have a free market and never have. Making it legal for a bunch of pricks to steal from those that actually did the work is not a libertarian tenet.
As with everything else in life, balance is needed. Going to any extreme is what gets us in trouble.
"Regular Doctors office? "What insurance do you have?" No insurance? Then you either don't get treated, or the same thing happens - you get billed, you don't pay, then It raises costs by being bad debt, or is reimbursed otherwise. We pay."
And one other thing. That's complete bullshit. If you get a bill and you refuse to pay it then that's on you. Don't want to pay the $150 bill for the Dr.'s treatment for your cold? THEN DON'T GO TO THE ER FOR IT EITHER. At some point you need to take responsibility for your actions, and refusing to pay a legitimate bill is a choice.
If there's no UC, then you go to the hospital. You do know that you can go to the hospital without going to the ER, right?
If you're in serious trouble, go to the ER. If you're not in serious trouble, go the general check-in at the hospital, go UC, go to a doctor's office, or go without. How is this difficult to understand?
What is wrong with expecting someone to pay for treatment for a general malaise? Or do you think that society should pay for your home repairs and car repairs as well? Insurance should be for big-ticket stuff, not the piddly stuff you're over with in a couple of days.
There's a difference between going to the ER for a cough or splinter and going in for broken bones, open/bleeding wounds, etc. Use your head.
If people with non-emergency situations are clogging up the emergency department then the hospital *should* be able to turn them away. This is what urgent care facilities are for, along with a regular doctor's office.
Not having health insurance is not a legitimate excuse for bad behavior, and going to the ER for a sore throat is bad behavior.
In the service we had a little joke about the difference between a leak and flooding. If you're afraid for your life, you have flooding. Anything else is just a leak. Health care is similar (though obviously more relaxed). Broken arm? Go to the ER. Headache? Go to UC and pay for it.
Thank you for the clarification, but you do realize that none of that is actually relevant, right? You just told me that, for the movie to make sense (and it still doesn't), I have to go and check out an additional source, ST:O. The vast majority of people who saw JJ Trek have never even heard of ST:O. A movie really needs to be able to stand on its own. If you have to put out additional material, you're doing it wrong.
You're kidding, right? I like the actors (except for Checkov, way too young and Doogie Howser-ish) and their portrayals. They really did an excellent job. But everything else was just plain bad.
Apparently, "training ship" means you have one of the most respected captains in the fleet, a part time academy professor, and nothing else but academy students? Really? This actually makes sense to you?
So the bridge was designed by Apple, but the engine room was designed by Anheuser-Busch. Remember those lovely, Whirling Blades of Doom in the beer line that almost chopped up Scotty? The scene was much more effective in Galaxy Quest, where they were mocking you for such idiocy. Or the super-large alien, completely out of any realistic/believable environment, chasing them before being eaten by an even larger alien? That scene was bad enough in SW:TPM, but sure, let's recycle it here. I really need to go on?
Sure, why not. How about the basic plot itself: The Romulan star is going super-nova... over a year rather than over 10s of thousands of years. Instead of evacuating the system, they ask the Vulcans for help. They only need a single drop of Magic Red Goo, but Spock decides to wait until they've synthesized a 55 gallon (Imperial?) drum of it, dooming them. So a mining captain, in charge of a mining ship that's larger, faster and more powerful than any warship ever created anywhere else in the galaxy, decides to go back in time and take it out on Earth. Sure wish I could just go back in time whenever I felt like it and blame all my troubles on other people.
This actually makes sense to you?
Sure, TOS was cheesy. I'm all in favor of re-imaging it. I just would have preferred a story that wasn't so incredibly stupid. I passed JJ Trek 2 because everything I've heard about it makes it sound even worse.
And Nimoy can go fuck himself. I am not a dickhead for not liking that crapfest-of-a-movie. He, however, is a major league asshole for blaming fans for not liking the garbage he was peddling.
This is interesting to me because it's reminiscent of my thesis for Poli Sci. Fundamentally, the problem is that a constitution is a technical document, yet The Constitution was written as a poem, and assumed that it would be read by gentlemen.
I also recommended including a specific edition of a law dictionary as part of the whole, table of contents and index, inclusionary and exclusionary examples and one or two other things.
And where, exactly, are these CAD files going to come from? There are going to be professional 3d modelers (just as there are now). The moment one of them hands out a file that was done on contract, their career is over. No one will ever trust them again.
There was nothing trollish about this you fucktarded morons. You're just mad because I called out your obvious bull shit. If you're such an activist then start proving it before you continue with your idiotic claims.
Bull shit. You were taken by surprise that there were tolls there, and weren't staying long enough to bother with setting up E-ZPass. All of you Privacy Commandos need to get over yourselves. I'm right there with you in believing that it's an important cause, but you're completely full of shit if you're claiming that you're doing anything other than bending over and taking it, then crying about it on/.
The point that you missed was the society decides what is okay and what is not. YOU said that what Miley did was bad, no GP. GP, rightly, pointed out that if society is okay with one, it should be okay with the other.
But go on, keep being outraged, OUTRAGED I tell you!
Slashdot Mirror
Close. You don't get to live in a free society without being required to contribute something to it. As I said elsewhere, the book was explicit about *Federal* service being a requirement for citizenship, not *military* service. He did make the distinction. He also made the distinction that the only real benefit to citizenship over being a civilian was being able to vote. The main character's father was a very successful businessman, but he was not a citizen.
Considering the way people on /. routinely blast voting it's pretty damn hypocritical to now use that as an excuse to attack the author and his book.
If that's really what you thought then maybe you should try actually reading the book. The book was explicit that *military* service was *not* a requirement for citizenship. *Federal* service was. If you think the two are the same...
Interesting. Please explain how you can satirize a source which you have not read.
I like how if I don't agree with the author then it means that there's something wrong with me.
are auto-driven, why should I have insurance?
"Look at how primitive things were just half a century ago."
Like Slashdot 1.0?
Oh, we're going to have this discussion again. Okay, I'll play. You see drivers texting and putting on make-up. I see cyclists riding in the pedestrian crosswalk, riding against the flow of traffic, maneuvering around slowing/stopped vehicles, and they never EVER use hand signals to indicate a turn or stop. And most of them don't use required safety equipment, let alone the recommended ones.
In aviation, more maneuverable aircraft yield right-of-way to less maneuverable aircraft. Though not actually codified, this is generally true in automotive. No one argues with the 18-wheeler. Then it breaks down when cyclists expect everyone to move for them (and this is the exact argument another gentlemen here was making the other day when claiming it's the driver's responsibility to adjust *their* behavior to accommodate cyclists).
Maybe motorcycles and bicycles should also be automated. I mean, fair is fair.
If those municipalities are relying on traffic tickets for revenue then they're doing it wrong. Citations and fines for traffic infractions are supposed to discourage bad driving, not raise money for the gov't.
Sooooooo...
We're a distributed work force. I use my personal cell phone for company business and receive reimbursement that covers about 2/3 the monthly cost. Amusingly, about 4/5 of its usage is business-related. I have a vehicle allowance, but I pay all upkeep, fuel that is not explicitly work-related, registration, and insurance. When I need to print out work papers, it's on my personal printer, and I receive no reimbursement for it. Nor am I reimbursed for my internet usage, and I do use it (a very, very tiny bit) for work, while on a company-provided laptop. I also store parts in my garage. And some of my tools are mine personally, and some are company-provided (I've been known to use their tools to fix my car, which I feel is fair since I use my tools to fix their equipment).
So where does that leave me?
I wear a pager for work (hospital environment). When there, everyone knows exactly why I'm checking it immediately if it goes off. When there or elsewhere, I apologize for checking it by saying, "Sorry, I'm on call. I need to check this." Usually they ask if I need to take it. If I don't, I tell them someone else will get it (we blast to the entire group). If I do, I tell them I'll get it when we're finished. Yes, the stuff I work on is that time critical. 5 minutes can be, and has been, the difference between getting the parts I need that day and getting them back up, or them being down an extra day. I think the key is to tell your audience what's going on instead of just tuning them out.
Your continued presence implies that that they do deserve your undivided attention. If you don't wish for this to be the case then you should excuse yourself and leave.
You mean like the Top of the World restaurant? http://www.topoftheworldlv.com/topoftheworld.htm
I told the longer version of this joke (bus driver instead of pilot) to a friend who's father had passed a few days before. (yes, I asked if I could make a joke). He started laughing. Way more than appropriate. Turns out his dad actually was a bus driver. (but no, that's not how/where he died).
Why would I howl about that? We don't have a free market and never have. Making it legal for a bunch of pricks to steal from those that actually did the work is not a libertarian tenet.
As with everything else in life, balance is needed. Going to any extreme is what gets us in trouble.
"Regular Doctors office? "What insurance do you have?" No insurance? Then you either don't get treated, or the same thing happens - you get billed, you don't pay, then It raises costs by being bad debt, or is reimbursed otherwise. We pay."
And one other thing. That's complete bullshit. If you get a bill and you refuse to pay it then that's on you. Don't want to pay the $150 bill for the Dr.'s treatment for your cold? THEN DON'T GO TO THE ER FOR IT EITHER. At some point you need to take responsibility for your actions, and refusing to pay a legitimate bill is a choice.
If there's no UC, then you go to the hospital. You do know that you can go to the hospital without going to the ER, right?
If you're in serious trouble, go to the ER. If you're not in serious trouble, go the general check-in at the hospital, go UC, go to a doctor's office, or go without. How is this difficult to understand?
What is wrong with expecting someone to pay for treatment for a general malaise? Or do you think that society should pay for your home repairs and car repairs as well? Insurance should be for big-ticket stuff, not the piddly stuff you're over with in a couple of days.
There's a difference between going to the ER for a cough or splinter and going in for broken bones, open/bleeding wounds, etc. Use your head.
If people with non-emergency situations are clogging up the emergency department then the hospital *should* be able to turn them away. This is what urgent care facilities are for, along with a regular doctor's office.
Not having health insurance is not a legitimate excuse for bad behavior, and going to the ER for a sore throat is bad behavior.
In the service we had a little joke about the difference between a leak and flooding. If you're afraid for your life, you have flooding. Anything else is just a leak. Health care is similar (though obviously more relaxed). Broken arm? Go to the ER. Headache? Go to UC and pay for it.
Thank you for the clarification, but you do realize that none of that is actually relevant, right? You just told me that, for the movie to make sense (and it still doesn't), I have to go and check out an additional source, ST:O. The vast majority of people who saw JJ Trek have never even heard of ST:O. A movie really needs to be able to stand on its own. If you have to put out additional material, you're doing it wrong.
You're kidding, right? I like the actors (except for Checkov, way too young and Doogie Howser-ish) and their portrayals. They really did an excellent job. But everything else was just plain bad.
Apparently, "training ship" means you have one of the most respected captains in the fleet, a part time academy professor, and nothing else but academy students? Really? This actually makes sense to you?
So the bridge was designed by Apple, but the engine room was designed by Anheuser-Busch. Remember those lovely, Whirling Blades of Doom in the beer line that almost chopped up Scotty? The scene was much more effective in Galaxy Quest, where they were mocking you for such idiocy. Or the super-large alien, completely out of any realistic/believable environment, chasing them before being eaten by an even larger alien? That scene was bad enough in SW:TPM, but sure, let's recycle it here. I really need to go on?
Sure, why not. How about the basic plot itself: The Romulan star is going super-nova... over a year rather than over 10s of thousands of years. Instead of evacuating the system, they ask the Vulcans for help. They only need a single drop of Magic Red Goo, but Spock decides to wait until they've synthesized a 55 gallon (Imperial?) drum of it, dooming them. So a mining captain, in charge of a mining ship that's larger, faster and more powerful than any warship ever created anywhere else in the galaxy, decides to go back in time and take it out on Earth. Sure wish I could just go back in time whenever I felt like it and blame all my troubles on other people.
This actually makes sense to you?
Sure, TOS was cheesy. I'm all in favor of re-imaging it. I just would have preferred a story that wasn't so incredibly stupid. I passed JJ Trek 2 because everything I've heard about it makes it sound even worse.
And Nimoy can go fuck himself. I am not a dickhead for not liking that crapfest-of-a-movie. He, however, is a major league asshole for blaming fans for not liking the garbage he was peddling.
This is interesting to me because it's reminiscent of my thesis for Poli Sci. Fundamentally, the problem is that a constitution is a technical document, yet The Constitution was written as a poem, and assumed that it would be read by gentlemen.
I also recommended including a specific edition of a law dictionary as part of the whole, table of contents and index, inclusionary and exclusionary examples and one or two other things.
Good luck with that.
And where, exactly, are these CAD files going to come from? There are going to be professional 3d modelers (just as there are now). The moment one of them hands out a file that was done on contract, their career is over. No one will ever trust them again.
There was nothing trollish about this you fucktarded morons. You're just mad because I called out your obvious bull shit. If you're such an activist then start proving it before you continue with your idiotic claims.
Bull shit. You were taken by surprise that there were tolls there, and weren't staying long enough to bother with setting up E-ZPass. All of you Privacy Commandos need to get over yourselves. I'm right there with you in believing that it's an important cause, but you're completely full of shit if you're claiming that you're doing anything other than bending over and taking it, then crying about it on /.
The point that you missed was the society decides what is okay and what is not. YOU said that what Miley did was bad, no GP. GP, rightly, pointed out that if society is okay with one, it should be okay with the other.
But go on, keep being outraged, OUTRAGED I tell you!
He said change you could believe in, not change you would agree with.