I think my favorite part of the entire speech was when Bush was discussing social security and mentioned how legislation for it had not been passed in congress last year, and the entire side of Democrats stood up and applauded.
The video of that will be played by their opponents for every election from now on.
Speech writers know how each side will react when they write these things. I'm amazed that the Democrats fell for it.
Well, first off, everyone's busy in "real life" (outside of work). The real object is to separate your work life and your "real life" as soon as possible. If you're doing work on your own time, the company takes that for granted.
Anyway, if they dumped you into that situation, take the time to research what to do while you're at work. If that's not good enough for the higher ups, it's time to look for a new job. In fact, if the management won't send you to the training because they'll afraid you'll leave, it's probably a sign you need to look for a new job anyway. An employer that thinks it's employees will leave because they're being trained, and won't do any training because of it is not a company you want to work for. There are better jobs out there.
Given all that, I would only pay for training myself if it were something *I* was interested in, and that the company wasn't.
And I always pay for my own books. If I leave, I want to be able to take the reference texts I've been using.
You're right. I have no idea why he didn't. My only thought was that it would be harder for him to get a job at another university, because if they heard he sued is former employer, they'd be afraid he'd sue them too. It's a shame that happened. Hiring should be based on merit. They lost a good guy.
There are many cases on the web where students have complained about exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Look 'em up.
If you want to see this sort of thing in action, hang around a college campus, read the student paper (profs do write-in some times). Some of these people are completely unhinged.
From today's LA Times:
Is America's Ivory Tower Leaning Left? Do Democrats and liberals dominate campus faculties in America? Here's what some studies show:
Among faculties Academics who identified themselves as left or liberal
in 1984 39%
in 1999 72%
Academics who identified themselves as right or conservative
in 1984 34%
in 1999 15%
Among campus faculties in 1999, Democrats outnumbered Republicans 5 to 1
The Democratic advantage by department in 1999
English: 35 to 1
History: 17.5 to 1
Biology: 4 to 1
Engineering: 3 to 1
Computer science: 2 to 1
Chemistry: 1.5 to 1
But in agriculture, Republicans held a 1.3 to 1 edge.
In 2004, employees of the University of California and Harvard University were John Kerry's largest dollar contributors and among Howard Dean's top five.
Among students, Incoming freshmen who identified themselves as left or liberal
in 1984 22%
in 2004 30%
Incoming freshmen who identified themselves as right or conservative
in 1984 21%
in 200424%
Sources: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1984); Stanley Rothman, S. Robert Lichter and Neil Nevitte (1999); Harris Poll (1984, 2004); Center for Responsive Politics (2004); Higher Education Research Institute (2004).
What, seeing other people taking a "beating" in class because of it isn't a good enough reason to shut the hell up, earn your grade, and get the hell out?
If the people teaching class were fair, then you'd have a point. If you've seen what they do to other people in class, you learn "gee, maybe I better STFU before I get screwed too".
Actually, it's more of the case of academics surrounding themselves with people they agree with politically, and black-balling those who don't. If you spent any time in an academic environment and actually sat on some of the hiring commitees as I have, you'd be quite surprised at what tenured professors get away with.
I know of a department that had a professor that didn't get tenure because of that. The professor I'm talking about is a well-known person that co-authored a book that's quite popular. (I'm not going to say what it is, because this guy's been through enough crap already). When I say "quite popular", I mean, it's damn near required reading in nearly every department I'm aware of. The reason he didn't get tenure? Black-balled for his political views. He was a popular professor, his book is well known, as is his reputation in the field he's in, yet he wasn't granted tenure because of his poltical views. He was by no means a radical either. He just happen to mention to the wrong person who he voted for in when they elected the last governor. After that, all hell broke lose as word got around. The guy wasn't treated the same after that.
Seven years wasted, and he's gone to another university now. I think if they would have known his political views before he was hired, he never would have been hired in the first place. He probably would have been better off.
So you disagree with your professor? Big deal - take it like an adult and agree to disagree.
Well, see that's the thing. If you have a disagree with the professor, you have to keep your damn mouth shut, or you'll end up paying for it. Some of these professors have decided to turn their classrooms into a platform for their political views, even though it has nothing to do with the subject they're teaching. Take a class on French History, and you're all of the sudden bombarded with political views that have nothing to do with French History, and then have the professor turn on you when you try and point this out?
If you walked into a class you needed to have to graduate, and the professor turns out to be a radical right-wing nutcase (or a left-wing moonbat, take your pick) that you disagree with, what do you do? He spends more time yapping about his current axe to grind, rather than teaching the subject... what do you do?
There's no "agreeing to disagree" with these people. You have to shut the hell up if you plan on passing the class. Meanwhile, there's nothing you can do.
It depends on what you mean by "raise a child". If you mean getting that kid a good education, I'd disagree. Schools in cities are rubbish. If you mean indoctrinate children into the mind-hive collective thought that anything non-liberal is evil.... Well, they're already accomplishing that.
No no...you miss my point. People are saying "Google's doing a great thing here, by keeping the DJ out of our business". Google is hip deep in "our business" and using that data to sell more advertising. If another company did that, people would be up-in-arms about it.
Rural areas have rightly garnered a reputation as being ingorant, intollerant and petty.
Interestingly enough, that's been my experience with people in big cities. Ignorant of anything outside of "city life", intolerant of anyone that doesn't agree with their personal/political view, and petty (& vengeful) in the extreme. Some of the people I've known in big cities (certainly not all...just clarifying that) have been the worse examples of human beings I've ever met. The weird thing was, they professed all these great ideals, but when it came time to their own life (helping others, charity, etc) they implemented none of it. They were vile.
How is this flamebait? The guy's being honest, and everything he said is true.
There's a big tendency in this country to suggest that anything that's not on the upper northeast of the country or on the left coast isn't worth living in.
I'm not sure how people can say that. When I listen to those people talk, they complain about (1) Housing prices, (2) how bad the schools are, (3) how bad the traffic is, and (4) the crime. (Basically, in that order). Then they turn right around and say how they could never live in "fly-over country".
But, you can get a damn big house for $200,000-$300,000 (like between 2000 and 3500 square feet), some great schools (if you pay attention to where you buy), traffic that actually moves at more than 20 miles per hour on the expressway, 4) lower crime rates.
Granted, no everyone likes small town America. If you tried it for a number of years, or grew up here, you gave it a shot.
But, if they don't want to live in a place they have no direct experience with, that's up to them.... however, ripping on a place when you have no experience with it... well, that makes you look foolish and very close-minded.
Ahhh, now we'll really see whether they can really live up their "Don't be evil" policy!
I was thinking the same thing, until someone pointed out that Google has been keeping tabs on searching activity for individual users for quite some time now. Think you've been doing searches without them keeping a history of what you've been searching and invading your privacy? Nope.
This completely depends on your customer base. If 80% of your customer base is Windows 95, then you'd better support that platform. If it's just two percent, and the other 98 percent is Win 98 and Win XP, then it's probably time to rethink that last two percent, especially if continuing to support is holding you back.
That said, think a long time before you drop support, and only do it if continuing to do that support is hurting your company or the product in some way. Customers in that minority that enjoy your products, and especially long time customers who are in that minority, will be pretty vocal about their happiness that you've got a product they can still use. This can help drive further sales.
At some point, you might have to drop support despite the wishes of these customers, but until that time, continue to support 'em as long as you can.
We have a set of potential customers we'd love to be able to support with our products, but the platform vendor bailed on 'em a long time ago. We can't even get the development software for the platform any more. We've had a number of inquiries about that platform, and we know that if we could support those folks, they'd love to have our software, but there's not much we can do.
Considering Fitzgerald has been playing it pretty close to the vest, predicting who he is going to indict (Rove), and who he isn't (Wilson, who, by the way, is a proven liar) is of PURE speculation.
Frankly, I think it'd be more interesting to see what was redacted in the Cisneros investigation... We paid for that, we should see the full results, right?
Regarding the Ambramhof stuff...like I said, we'll see. Should be interesting.
Because the money that Democrats received was redirected through the Indian tribes that were his clients. Money directly, laundered money through Indian Tribes.... no difference there. The Democrats are hip deep in this, and their denials of what's happening is going to bury them in this scandal. They seem to think if they keep repeating that it was "only Republicans" over and over and over again, it'll somehow come true.
As I wrote in another post, when the indictments come down, we'll see who's guilty.
I'm not distorting anything. Just because Ambrahoff didn't personally send the money, but his clients did instead, doesn't make him less guilty. By your logic, Tom Delay is innocent because he didn't personally do anything with the money.
We'll find out soon enough, once the indictments start rolling in.
Using this logic, Tom Delay isn't guilty of anything because he didn't personally handle any of the money. I'm sure you wouldn't agree with that, and that's exactly why your argument fails.
MANY Democrats, including Reid, received money from Abramhoff's clients. The only difference between the Repubs and the Demos on this is that most of the Repubs are sending the money to charity, and most of the Demos are keeping the money....and accusing the Republicans of being the only ones involved in this scandal, when they're not.
Those are the facts. You might not like them, but that doesn't entitle you to make up your own version of reality. Don't blindly believe Howard Dean without investigating the facts for yourself, or leave out key facts (like the Democrats took Abramhoff's client's money) because it doesn't fit in with your agenda.
If you do that, people will take you more seriously.
Sure it matters. The Democrats received the money from his clients. Their hand was in the cookie jar, and they're guilty. Just repeating talking points over and over and over doesn't make the Democrats any less guilty.
- Senator Harry Reid (Senate Minority Leader) received $66,000 from Abramoff tribal clients (and refuses to return it). He also claims to have never met Abramoff, even though his legislative counsel and assistant finance director of his Senate campaign went to work for Abramoff.
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (House Minority Leader) received $3,000 from Abramoff tribal clients.
- Rep. Charlie Rangel took $36,000 from Abramoff tribal clients (and refuses to return it).
- Senator Max Baucus took almost $19,000 from Abramoff tribal clients (he's now donating tribal colleges in Montana).
- Senator Byron Dorgan (ranking Democrat on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, which is currently investigating Jack Abramoff) received $67,000 in contributions from Abramoff tribal clients just weeks after supporting legislation favorable to Abramoff clients.(he's returning the money, but refuses to step down from the investigation).
- Rep. Patrick Kennedy took $128,000 in donations from Abramoff clients.
If I heard that a company was trying to hire on a racist basis, I'd make a point of not doing business with them, not just because of their repugnant behavior, but because it points to incompetence in management.
I've walked out of places where I've heard workers making racist remarks. White, Black, and Asian. (And the Asian place refused to seat some customers!) I've watched for how long those places lasted after I first realized what they were like. 2 months, 6 months, and 9 months...that's how long it took for each of them to go under.
If I had the mod points to put your post up to +10, I would.
Well, given this argument, how can someone make the reverse accusation? How can they prove that they weren't hired because of their race? Because they didn't have "enough" people working for them that were yellow/brown/white?
I worked at a major university some time back. We hired a LOT of people over the years in the department I worked for. Of the over 500 people in the organization, I can think of three people that were black, and one of them transfered from another part of the university. One was a secretary, and two were in upper management. In all the hiring I saw done, in over 12 years, I never, not a single time, did I see a black candidate interviewed. Not once. We interviewed (and hired) every race and creed, I never saw a black candidate. There was a distinct effort on the part of the University's EEO to find candidates, but they were never successful. And this was at a public university!
Considering the Democrats have Robert Byrd, who belong to the KKK, still in their midst, I wouldn't be throwing around the "Republican" accusations around if I were you. That bastard should have been thrown out of Congress a long time ago, but they still keep him and still make excuses for him.
Vint Cerf made great contributions to the Internet. There's no doubt about that.
A few years ago, I saw an interview where the reporter asked whether the term "Surfing the net" was based on his name. Rather than correct the reporter, he acted coy and suggested that "cerfing the net" could indeed be related to him. Geesh.
Considering that bats carry all kinds of disease, I suppose you could say that *that* was a safety issue. Maybe sliding around in their guts and slipping on the floor after they get hit could be a safety issue. ("That's a joke, son..." - Foghorn Leghorn)
I personally don't view it as much of a safety issue as just an issue that there are trade-offs for. I don't particularly like the fact that bats are getting mowed down by these new things that cropped up in their area. It would be nice to have a happy medium that did something to at least discourage the bats from getting near the dang things. What that might be, I have no idea.
The real problem is that each side (the new energy source people and the animal activists) see this as an all or nothing issue, and refuse to see the other side on this. They need to work together.
Slashdot Mirror
The video of that will be played by their opponents for every election from now on.
Speech writers know how each side will react when they write these things. I'm amazed that the Democrats fell for it.
Well, first off, everyone's busy in "real life" (outside of work). The real object is to separate your work life and your "real life" as soon as possible. If you're doing work on your own time, the company takes that for granted.
Anyway, if they dumped you into that situation, take the time to research what to do while you're at work. If that's not good enough for the higher ups, it's time to look for a new job. In fact, if the management won't send you to the training because they'll afraid you'll leave, it's probably a sign you need to look for a new job anyway. An employer that thinks it's employees will leave because they're being trained, and won't do any training because of it is not a company you want to work for. There are better jobs out there.
Given all that, I would only pay for training myself if it were something *I* was interested in, and that the company wasn't.
And I always pay for my own books. If I leave, I want to be able to take the reference texts I've been using.
Good luck with this.
You're right. I have no idea why he didn't. My only thought was that it would be harder for him to get a job at another university, because if they heard he sued is former employer, they'd be afraid he'd sue them too. It's a shame that happened. Hiring should be based on merit. They lost a good guy.
There are many cases on the web where students have complained about exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Look 'em up.
If you want to see this sort of thing in action, hang around a college campus, read the student paper (profs do write-in some times). Some of these people are completely unhinged.
From today's LA Times:
Is America's Ivory Tower Leaning Left?
Do Democrats and liberals dominate campus faculties in America? Here's what some studies show:
Among faculties
Academics who identified themselves as left or liberal
in 1984 39%
in 1999 72%
Academics who identified themselves as right or conservative
in 1984 34%
in 1999 15%
Among campus faculties in 1999, Democrats outnumbered Republicans 5 to 1
The Democratic advantage by department in 1999
English: 35 to 1
History: 17.5 to 1
Biology: 4 to 1
Engineering: 3 to 1
Computer science: 2 to 1
Chemistry: 1.5 to 1
But in agriculture, Republicans held a 1.3 to 1 edge.
In 2004, employees of the University of California and Harvard University were John Kerry's largest dollar contributors and among Howard Dean's top five.
Among students,
Incoming freshmen who identified themselves as left or liberal
in 1984 22%
in 2004 30%
Incoming freshmen who identified themselves as right or conservative
in 1984 21%
in 200424%
Sources: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1984); Stanley Rothman, S. Robert Lichter and Neil Nevitte (1999); Harris Poll (1984, 2004); Center for Responsive Politics (2004); Higher Education Research Institute (2004).
What, seeing other people taking a "beating" in class because of it isn't a good enough reason to shut the hell up, earn your grade, and get the hell out?
If the people teaching class were fair, then you'd have a point. If you've seen what they do to other people in class, you learn "gee, maybe I better STFU before I get screwed too".
Call bullshit all you want. It happened.
Actually, it's more of the case of academics surrounding themselves with people they agree with politically, and black-balling those who don't. If you spent any time in an academic environment and actually sat on some of the hiring commitees as I have, you'd be quite surprised at what tenured professors get away with.
I know of a department that had a professor that didn't get tenure because of that. The professor I'm talking about is a well-known person that co-authored a book that's quite popular. (I'm not going to say what it is, because this guy's been through enough crap already). When I say "quite popular", I mean, it's damn near required reading in nearly every department I'm aware of. The reason he didn't get tenure? Black-balled for his political views. He was a popular professor, his book is well known, as is his reputation in the field he's in, yet he wasn't granted tenure because of his poltical views. He was by no means a radical either. He just happen to mention to the wrong person who he voted for in when they elected the last governor. After that, all hell broke lose as word got around. The guy wasn't treated the same after that.
Seven years wasted, and he's gone to another university now. I think if they would have known his political views before he was hired, he never would have been hired in the first place. He probably would have been better off.
Well, see that's the thing. If you have a disagree with the professor, you have to keep your damn mouth shut, or you'll end up paying for it. Some of these professors have decided to turn their classrooms into a platform for their political views, even though it has nothing to do with the subject they're teaching. Take a class on French History, and you're all of the sudden bombarded with political views that have nothing to do with French History, and then have the professor turn on you when you try and point this out?
If you walked into a class you needed to have to graduate, and the professor turns out to be a radical right-wing nutcase (or a left-wing moonbat, take your pick) that you disagree with, what do you do? He spends more time yapping about his current axe to grind, rather than teaching the subject... what do you do?
There's no "agreeing to disagree" with these people. You have to shut the hell up if you plan on passing the class. Meanwhile, there's nothing you can do.
It depends on what you mean by "raise a child". If you mean getting that kid a good education, I'd disagree. Schools in cities are rubbish. If you mean indoctrinate children into the mind-hive collective thought that anything non-liberal is evil.... Well, they're already accomplishing that.
No no...you miss my point. People are saying "Google's doing a great thing here, by keeping the DJ out of our business". Google is hip deep in "our business" and using that data to sell more advertising. If another company did that, people would be up-in-arms about it.
Oh...but it's Google! It's OK for them to use it!
Interestingly enough, that's been my experience with people in big cities. Ignorant of anything outside of "city life", intolerant of anyone that doesn't agree with their personal/political view, and petty (& vengeful) in the extreme. Some of the people I've known in big cities (certainly not all...just clarifying that) have been the worse examples of human beings I've ever met. The weird thing was, they professed all these great ideals, but when it came time to their own life (helping others, charity, etc) they implemented none of it. They were vile.
How is this flamebait? The guy's being honest, and everything he said is true.
There's a big tendency in this country to suggest that anything that's not on the upper northeast of the country or on the left coast isn't worth living in.
I'm not sure how people can say that. When I listen to those people talk, they complain about (1) Housing prices, (2) how bad the schools are, (3) how bad the traffic is, and (4) the crime. (Basically, in that order). Then they turn right around and say how they could never live in "fly-over country".
But, you can get a damn big house for $200,000-$300,000 (like between 2000 and 3500 square feet), some great schools (if you pay attention to where you buy), traffic that actually moves at more than 20 miles per hour on the expressway, 4) lower crime rates.
Granted, no everyone likes small town America. If you tried it for a number of years, or grew up here, you gave it a shot.
But, if they don't want to live in a place they have no direct experience with, that's up to them.... however, ripping on a place when you have no experience with it... well, that makes you look foolish and very close-minded.
I was thinking the same thing, until someone pointed out that Google has been keeping tabs on searching activity for individual users for quite some time now. Think you've been doing searches without them keeping a history of what you've been searching and invading your privacy? Nope.
This completely depends on your customer base. If 80% of your customer base is Windows 95, then you'd better support that platform. If it's just two percent, and the other 98 percent is Win 98 and Win XP, then it's probably time to rethink that last two percent, especially if continuing to support is holding you back.
That said, think a long time before you drop support, and only do it if continuing to do that support is hurting your company or the product in some way. Customers in that minority that enjoy your products, and especially long time customers who are in that minority, will be pretty vocal about their happiness that you've got a product they can still use. This can help drive further sales.
At some point, you might have to drop support despite the wishes of these customers, but until that time, continue to support 'em as long as you can.
We have a set of potential customers we'd love to be able to support with our products, but the platform vendor bailed on 'em a long time ago. We can't even get the development software for the platform any more. We've had a number of inquiries about that platform, and we know that if we could support those folks, they'd love to have our software, but there's not much we can do.
Considering Fitzgerald has been playing it pretty close to the vest, predicting who he is going to indict (Rove), and who he isn't (Wilson, who, by the way, is a proven liar) is of PURE speculation.
Frankly, I think it'd be more interesting to see what was redacted in the Cisneros investigation... We paid for that, we should see the full results, right?
Regarding the Ambramhof stuff...like I said, we'll see. Should be interesting.
Because the money that Democrats received was redirected through the Indian tribes that were his clients. Money directly, laundered money through Indian Tribes.... no difference there. The Democrats are hip deep in this, and their denials of what's happening is going to bury them in this scandal. They seem to think if they keep repeating that it was "only Republicans" over and over and over again, it'll somehow come true.
As I wrote in another post, when the indictments come down, we'll see who's guilty.
I'm not distorting anything. Just because Ambrahoff didn't personally send the money, but his clients did instead, doesn't make him less guilty. By your logic, Tom Delay is innocent because he didn't personally do anything with the money.
We'll find out soon enough, once the indictments start rolling in.
Using this logic, Tom Delay isn't guilty of anything because he didn't personally handle any of the money. I'm sure you wouldn't agree with that, and that's exactly why your argument fails.
MANY Democrats, including Reid, received money from Abramhoff's clients. The only difference between the Repubs and the Demos on this is that most of the Repubs are sending the money to charity, and most of the Demos are keeping the money....and accusing the Republicans of being the only ones involved in this scandal, when they're not.
Those are the facts. You might not like them, but that doesn't entitle you to make up your own version of reality. Don't blindly believe Howard Dean without investigating the facts for yourself, or leave out key facts (like the Democrats took Abramhoff's client's money) because it doesn't fit in with your agenda.
If you do that, people will take you more seriously.
Sure it matters. The Democrats received the money from his clients. Their hand was in the cookie jar, and they're guilty. Just repeating talking points over and over and over doesn't make the Democrats any less guilty.
- Senator Harry Reid (Senate Minority Leader) received $66,000 from Abramoff tribal clients (and refuses to return it). He also claims to have never met Abramoff, even though his legislative counsel and assistant finance director of his Senate campaign went to work for Abramoff.
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (House Minority Leader) received $3,000 from Abramoff tribal clients.
- Rep. Charlie Rangel took $36,000 from Abramoff tribal clients (and refuses to return it).
- Senator Max Baucus took almost $19,000 from Abramoff tribal clients (he's now donating tribal colleges in Montana).
- Senator Byron Dorgan (ranking Democrat on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, which is currently investigating Jack Abramoff) received $67,000 in contributions from Abramoff tribal clients just weeks after supporting legislation favorable to Abramoff clients.(he's returning the money, but refuses to step down from the investigation).
- Rep. Patrick Kennedy took $128,000 in donations from Abramoff clients.
Well, given this argument, how can someone make the reverse accusation? How can they prove that they weren't hired because of their race? Because they didn't have "enough" people working for them that were yellow/brown/white?
I worked at a major university some time back. We hired a LOT of people over the years in the department I worked for. Of the over 500 people in the organization, I can think of three people that were black, and one of them transfered from another part of the university. One was a secretary, and two were in upper management. In all the hiring I saw done, in over 12 years, I never, not a single time, did I see a black candidate interviewed. Not once. We interviewed (and hired) every race and creed, I never saw a black candidate. There was a distinct effort on the part of the University's EEO to find candidates, but they were never successful. And this was at a public university!
Considering the Democrats have Robert Byrd, who belong to the KKK, still in their midst, I wouldn't be throwing around the "Republican" accusations around if I were you. That bastard should have been thrown out of Congress a long time ago, but they still keep him and still make excuses for him.
Vint Cerf made great contributions to the Internet. There's no doubt about that.
A few years ago, I saw an interview where the reporter asked whether the term "Surfing the net" was based on his name. Rather than correct the reporter, he acted coy and suggested that "cerfing the net" could indeed be related to him. Geesh.
Considering that bats carry all kinds of disease, I suppose you could say that *that* was a safety issue. Maybe sliding around in their guts and slipping on the floor after they get hit could be a safety issue. ("That's a joke, son..." - Foghorn Leghorn)
I personally don't view it as much of a safety issue as just an issue that there are trade-offs for. I don't particularly like the fact that bats are getting mowed down by these new things that cropped up in their area. It would be nice to have a happy medium that did something to at least discourage the bats from getting near the dang things. What that might be, I have no idea.
The real problem is that each side (the new energy source people and the animal activists) see this as an all or nothing issue, and refuse to see the other side on this. They need to work together.