Unfortunately, in the real world, leaders of large organizations have to make these decisions all of the time. Many times it is necessary to do some small evil to do a large amount of good. People (and organizations) who live and die by their principles mostly die by them.
Anyway, a publicly stated policy has abolutely no relation to how things are enforced. No one's private lives are investigated in the scouts. A homesexual leader in many cases can (and has) been tolerated by their unit, as long as he remains discreet. A complaint would have to be filed with the council, and the leader would have to admit to being homosexual before any action would be taken. A simple denial in most cases shuts the process down.
We don't kill POWs because it is barbaric to do so. We keep them alive because it is a lot easier to get someone to surrender when they know they will be treated better as a POW than they would in their own army. If killing POWs would end wars faster, you can bet your ass we would do it.
Some examples of the United Way supporting right wing christian bigots:
United Way (in general) supports Catholic Charities.
The United Way of the Greater Winona [MN] Area supports two Boy Scout councils.
The United Way of Central Ohio supports the Simon Kenton Boy Scout Council.
I've got to leap to the defense of the scouts. While it is true that the scouts do not allow homosexual leaders, it is more of a political decision than a bigotted one - they would lose too much money and membership if they were to allow it than if they maintain their current policies. And while the majority of the US membership is Chrisitan, the scouts have specific awards set up for more faiths than you can imagine: from Bhuddist to B'hai, Jewish, Taoist, Muslim...you name it, they are inclusive of it. You can be a satanist and be a Boy Scout, just not an atheist (as established by court case law).
Speaking as a second generation Eagle Scout, Cub Scout leader, supporter of PFLAG, and non-Christian.
Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't IBM transformed themselves into a services company (with high profit margins), while HP sells printers (with razor thin profit margins)?
I don't know if this has been pointed out, but Mohammed would have been collecting social security around the time his bride was starting kindergarten. I could call Mohammed a funny man for this, but a rose by any other name is still a rose. So if you think calling a pedophile a pedophile is hate speech, then feel free to call me one hateful person. I think you're just an idiot, and cannot fathom what would even compel you to defend this atrocious act.
--
Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
I think that might be the most ironic thing I have ever seen. Thanks for the laugh.:)
Since no one else has pointed it out...the average lifespan was 30 years old. If you weren't married by 14, you were an old maid. There is a reason that ba{r|t} mitzvahs happen when someone is 13 - back then, that was slightly before middle age.
Consumating a marriage with a 9 year old is pedophilia by today's standards, but back then, it would have been perfectly normal. Calling Mohammed a pedophile is totally ignoring historical context, and thus cannot be construed as anything other than intentionally slanting an argument to promote an agenda - hate speech.
Hate to break this to you, but you are the food equivalent of a Windows user, complete with Weatherbug, mouse tracers, and monkey punching. Seriously. People who enjoy food don't use the term "fancy" when refering to a restaurant. Olive Garden is the equivalent of Gator. Taco Bell is the Nigeria scam. (Taco Bell can barely even be considered "food". They use Grade C meat - the lowest grade fit for human consumption. It's a step above dog food. Anyone who knows what real food should taste like can't stand the stuff.)
I don't make that much money compared to many Slashdotters, but my palette is very well educated. I don't step foot in chain restaurants. Ever. The food is terrible, the service sucks, and you can usually find better for less money. Not only will I not eat there, you couldn't pay me to do it.
The point that I am trying to make is that people do not always want cheap. Uneducated people want cheap. Educated people want value, and may be willing to pay more to get it. Expensive does not always equal better, but on average, you get what you pay for.
Please forgive me for copying my own post, but I'm lazy.
I'm a performance tester who has had to completely reinvent how we do business thanks to virtualization. How do you give assurances to an application that they will perform adequately in a virtual environment when by definition performance will always be dynamic?
The primary approach we have had to take was to stop looking at whether an app will perform on a virtual machine, and start looking at whether or not it will be cost effective for the app to perform virtually (in general, apps that will perform in the physical world can be made to perform in the virtual world if you throw enough resources at them). After a certain point, it becomes cheaper to run the app on a physical server.
It's an interesting problem. We found that our company's big push into virtualization had to be scaled back a bit - not every server is truly a good candidate for virtualization.
I hope you realize that the majority of Christians aren't like that. They probably think you'd be better off if you were Christian, but they wouldn't harrass you about it or try to force it on you. But I think at this point it's rather silly to argue about who stole whom's customs or rituals or celebrations - most of the "stealing" went on centuries to millennia ago, it seems like it's time to bury the hatchet.
Two points:
1. You have obviously never been a non-Christian in the mid-western United States. I can assure you that the majority around here will most certainly harass you, even after you ask them to stop.
2. It is easy for Christians to talk about burying the hatchet, mainly because they have been burying it into pagans for the last several hundred years.
VMware ESX Server provides proportional-share guarantees for CPU, memory, network and storage performance. I.e., if you always want 50% of a CPU, or 200% of 2 CPUs, or 75% of the bandwidth of a gigE nic, etc., that can be arranged.
We are aware. The problem is, if I have to guarantee 2 CPUs to make an app perform, it is more cost effective to buy a physical box - those hosts aren't cheap. We determined our break even point to be 35% of a CPU - any more than that, and we make it a physical server.
I'm a performance tester who has had to completely reinvent how we do business thanks to virtualization. How do you give assurances to an application that they will perform adequately in a virtual environment when by definition performance will always be dynamic?
The primary approach we have had to take was to stop looking at whether an app will perform on a virtual machine, and start looking at whether or not it will be cost effective for the app to perform virtually (in general, apps that will perform in the physical world can be made to perform in the virtual world if you throw enough resources at them).
It's an interesting problem. We found that our company's big push into virtualization had to be scaled back a bit - not every server is truly a good candidate for virtualization.
Financial companies are required by law to keep records of all communications with their clients. Webmail makes that pretty difficult to guarantee, so it is often blocked in the financial sector. VoIP would be right out as well, as is all IM.
And for all of you people whining about your company not trusting you, they shouldn't. You shouldn't trust them either. I expect both parties to take advantage of each other to the fullest extent allowable by law. Where I come from they call that "business".
If parents did their jobs, instead of pursuing wealth for its own sake, their kids would have a very hard time getting porn. But how are they going to do that when both parents work because neither of them wants to give up their job for selfish reasons like self-fullfillment. Can't give up your uber-fullfilling job? Don't have kids. You can't "have it all," despite what the fucktard feminists and their male counterparts have claimed for decades. Being a parent is a fulltime job, not a babysitting job.
Wow. Um.
You certainly are holier-than-thou and more than a little uptight. I think you are making a fairly gross assumption - that it is better for kids (how, exactly?) to have one parent at home than two parents working. I'm not sure I buy that. I'm sure we can throw togeter all kinds of anecdotal evidence about bad things that have happened in working-parent households, but I'm sure I can come up with an equal number of anecdotes about how two parents working meant better schools, affording college, better food,...
So, put up or shut up. You cast dispersions on families where both parents work. Why is it better for one parent to be at home? Seriously. Concrete reasons. Then back it up with some science, not some Focus on the Family pap.
Personally, I think that circumstances vary widely. I know, for example, that my kid can't handle some things that other kids his age can, but in other things he is light years ahead. I tailor my parenting to my child, because I know him best, and what he can handle. I would never presume to tell someone else that they are parenting poorly, because I *don't* know their kids, and what they can handle. I believe that the vast majority of parents love their children, and try to do what is best for them. Therefore, I have to trust that they know what they are doing, and give them the benefit of the doubt. This is because I realize that there are more special situations out there than stars in the sky, and if I try to paint everyone with the same brush, I end up looking like - well, a fucktard.
Your misogynistic tendencies aside, I believe that you are speaking from the heart, and you are concerned about other people's kids. You just don't have any problem marginalizing anyone who disagrees with you. This is really the heart of the difference between liberal and conservative - conservatives are always right, and liberals believe there is more than one way to look at it.
My only consolation is that in the end, conservatives always lose. If they didn't, we'd still be living in caves.
The practice people have developed of leaving their computers on 24/7 should stop
I don't know about anyone else, but 100% of the hardware failures I have had have been during a cold reboot. Keeping your hardware warm keeps it alive longer.
Add it all up, and it spells "you lose." But since I'm sure you'll need more convincing than simply pointing out you desperately used several logical fallacies to shore up your specious argument, let me ask you a question.
Say Rockstar came out with a game in which you're a Nazi, trying to take over Europe.
Is this where I point out that Jefferson was both a slave owner, and one of the authors of the Constitution?
You could, but you would only appear pedantic. Very few of the founding fathers were not slave owners, but conservatives only seem to point this out for Jefferson, presumably because his philosophy is so anti-Federalist, and therefore does not support a strong executive.
I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.
-Thomas Jefferson
It is a mark of intelligence to be able to hold two competing ideas in the mind at the same time. Jefferson certainly knew of his hypocrisy, and it troubled him all of his life. And by the way, Jefferson didn't only author the Declaration of Independence and large portions of the Constitution, but he was also the architect of the Bill of Rights. So what exactly was your point again?
A "free country" isn't a country where there are no laws. It's a country where the laws approximate the collective will of the people, and not just of a few at the top.
The greatest threat to indvidual liberty is the will of the majority.
-Thomas Jefferson
A free country is a country with a strong constitution, in our case, the first ten ammendments to our constitution.
As the husband of a former optician whose eyes are so bad she is legally blind, I'd advise you to hold off. Complication rate on LASIK is low, but still significant enough that there is no way she would touch it. New technologies such as implanted contact lenses look like they are performing better and hold less risk. With 20/80 vision, you are essentially inconvenienced - you can still see fine out of one eye, and 20/80 is not really that bad (to put it in perspective, my wife is closer to 20/800).
Think of it this way - would you risk a 1% chance of blindness to avoid having to wear glasses for 10 years (until the new tech develops)? No thanks, I'll pass.
The blogger writes that WoW is rated T for Teen, and therefore any discussion of sexuality at all is inappropriate, because the minimum recommended age for this game is 13.
Personally, this just (once again) proves to me that this country was founded primarily by sexually repressed fanatics that were kicked out of Europe for being killjoys. (It wasn't that they were being persecuted because of their religion, it was mainly because they were obnoxious - if you live anywhere near the Bible Belt, you know exactly what I mean.) If you can't handle hearing about gay people when you are 13, you have no business being anywhere near the net.
To my mind, there's a significant difference between buying a pair of Chinese-made shoelaces and offering a search engine that blocks links about Tibet and Taiwan. YMMV.
You're right. The shoelaces were probably made by an underage, underpaid worker in sweatshop-like conditions. The fact that you are still willing to buy said shoelaces, knowing the conditions they were manufactured under, means that in order to compete, more Chinese companies have to abuse their workers the same way - which means in order to compete American companies have to buy from the cheaper Chinese companies, which create more incentive to abuse workers further - not to mention costing American manufacturing jobs.
What were talking about again? Oh yes. Blocking search results. Very bad.
All of you "OH NOES! GOOGLE IS TEH EVIL!!!11!eleventyone" people need to re-evaluate their lives. Do you all consider yourselves evil? No? How many of you are working on systems whose parts were manufactured in China? How many of your clothes and shoes were made there? How many objects can you find within ten feet of you right this second that were made in China? You are doing business in China, by buying their goods, but you are not evil. Why are you applying a double standard to Google?
Slashdot Mirror
Homer: Lisa, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
Anyway, a publicly stated policy has abolutely no relation to how things are enforced. No one's private lives are investigated in the scouts. A homesexual leader in many cases can (and has) been tolerated by their unit, as long as he remains discreet. A complaint would have to be filed with the council, and the leader would have to admit to being homosexual before any action would be taken. A simple denial in most cases shuts the process down.
We don't kill POWs because it is barbaric to do so. We keep them alive because it is a lot easier to get someone to surrender when they know they will be treated better as a POW than they would in their own army. If killing POWs would end wars faster, you can bet your ass we would do it.
United Way (in general) supports Catholic Charities.
The United Way of the Greater Winona [MN] Area supports two Boy Scout councils.
The United Way of Central Ohio supports the Simon Kenton Boy Scout Council.
I've got to leap to the defense of the scouts. While it is true that the scouts do not allow homosexual leaders, it is more of a political decision than a bigotted one - they would lose too much money and membership if they were to allow it than if they maintain their current policies. And while the majority of the US membership is Chrisitan, the scouts have specific awards set up for more faiths than you can imagine: from Bhuddist to B'hai, Jewish, Taoist, Muslim...you name it, they are inclusive of it. You can be a satanist and be a Boy Scout, just not an atheist (as established by court case law).
Speaking as a second generation Eagle Scout, Cub Scout leader, supporter of PFLAG, and non-Christian.
Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't IBM transformed themselves into a services company (with high profit margins), while HP sells printers (with razor thin profit margins)?
-- Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
I think that might be the most ironic thing I have ever seen. Thanks for the laugh. :)
Consumating a marriage with a 9 year old is pedophilia by today's standards, but back then, it would have been perfectly normal. Calling Mohammed a pedophile is totally ignoring historical context, and thus cannot be construed as anything other than intentionally slanting an argument to promote an agenda - hate speech.
I don't make that much money compared to many Slashdotters, but my palette is very well educated. I don't step foot in chain restaurants. Ever. The food is terrible, the service sucks, and you can usually find better for less money. Not only will I not eat there, you couldn't pay me to do it.
The point that I am trying to make is that people do not always want cheap. Uneducated people want cheap. Educated people want value, and may be willing to pay more to get it. Expensive does not always equal better, but on average, you get what you pay for.
I'm a performance tester who has had to completely reinvent how we do business thanks to virtualization. How do you give assurances to an application that they will perform adequately in a virtual environment when by definition performance will always be dynamic?
The primary approach we have had to take was to stop looking at whether an app will perform on a virtual machine, and start looking at whether or not it will be cost effective for the app to perform virtually (in general, apps that will perform in the physical world can be made to perform in the virtual world if you throw enough resources at them). After a certain point, it becomes cheaper to run the app on a physical server.
It's an interesting problem. We found that our company's big push into virtualization had to be scaled back a bit - not every server is truly a good candidate for virtualization.
Two points:
1. You have obviously never been a non-Christian in the mid-western United States. I can assure you that the majority around here will most certainly harass you, even after you ask them to stop.
2. It is easy for Christians to talk about burying the hatchet, mainly because they have been burying it into pagans for the last several hundred years.
We are aware. The problem is, if I have to guarantee 2 CPUs to make an app perform, it is more cost effective to buy a physical box - those hosts aren't cheap. We determined our break even point to be 35% of a CPU - any more than that, and we make it a physical server.
The primary approach we have had to take was to stop looking at whether an app will perform on a virtual machine, and start looking at whether or not it will be cost effective for the app to perform virtually (in general, apps that will perform in the physical world can be made to perform in the virtual world if you throw enough resources at them).
It's an interesting problem. We found that our company's big push into virtualization had to be scaled back a bit - not every server is truly a good candidate for virtualization.
And for all of you people whining about your company not trusting you, they shouldn't. You shouldn't trust them either. I expect both parties to take advantage of each other to the fullest extent allowable by law. Where I come from they call that "business".
*bows to the master* thanks for the correction
Wow. Um.
You certainly are holier-than-thou and more than a little uptight. I think you are making a fairly gross assumption - that it is better for kids (how, exactly?) to have one parent at home than two parents working. I'm not sure I buy that. I'm sure we can throw togeter all kinds of anecdotal evidence about bad things that have happened in working-parent households, but I'm sure I can come up with an equal number of anecdotes about how two parents working meant better schools, affording college, better food,...
So, put up or shut up. You cast dispersions on families where both parents work. Why is it better for one parent to be at home? Seriously. Concrete reasons. Then back it up with some science, not some Focus on the Family pap.
Personally, I think that circumstances vary widely. I know, for example, that my kid can't handle some things that other kids his age can, but in other things he is light years ahead. I tailor my parenting to my child, because I know him best, and what he can handle. I would never presume to tell someone else that they are parenting poorly, because I *don't* know their kids, and what they can handle. I believe that the vast majority of parents love their children, and try to do what is best for them. Therefore, I have to trust that they know what they are doing, and give them the benefit of the doubt. This is because I realize that there are more special situations out there than stars in the sky, and if I try to paint everyone with the same brush, I end up looking like - well, a fucktard.
Your misogynistic tendencies aside, I believe that you are speaking from the heart, and you are concerned about other people's kids. You just don't have any problem marginalizing anyone who disagrees with you. This is really the heart of the difference between liberal and conservative - conservatives are always right, and liberals believe there is more than one way to look at it.
My only consolation is that in the end, conservatives always lose. If they didn't, we'd still be living in caves.
I don't know about anyone else, but 100% of the hardware failures I have had have been during a cold reboot. Keeping your hardware warm keeps it alive longer.
Say Rockstar came out with a game in which you're a Nazi, trying to take over Europe.
Godwin. You lose.
s/fun/porn/
You could, but you would only appear pedantic. Very few of the founding fathers were not slave owners, but conservatives only seem to point this out for Jefferson, presumably because his philosophy is so anti-Federalist, and therefore does not support a strong executive.
It is a mark of intelligence to be able to hold two competing ideas in the mind at the same time. Jefferson certainly knew of his hypocrisy, and it troubled him all of his life. And by the way, Jefferson didn't only author the Declaration of Independence and large portions of the Constitution, but he was also the architect of the Bill of Rights. So what exactly was your point again?
A free country is a country with a strong constitution, in our case, the first ten ammendments to our constitution.
Think of it this way - would you risk a 1% chance of blindness to avoid having to wear glasses for 10 years (until the new tech develops)? No thanks, I'll pass.
Personally, this just (once again) proves to me that this country was founded primarily by sexually repressed fanatics that were kicked out of Europe for being killjoys. (It wasn't that they were being persecuted because of their religion, it was mainly because they were obnoxious - if you live anywhere near the Bible Belt, you know exactly what I mean.) If you can't handle hearing about gay people when you are 13, you have no business being anywhere near the net.
You're right. The shoelaces were probably made by an underage, underpaid worker in sweatshop-like conditions. The fact that you are still willing to buy said shoelaces, knowing the conditions they were manufactured under, means that in order to compete, more Chinese companies have to abuse their workers the same way - which means in order to compete American companies have to buy from the cheaper Chinese companies, which create more incentive to abuse workers further - not to mention costing American manufacturing jobs.
What were talking about again? Oh yes. Blocking search results. Very bad.
Not if those business are part of a COMMUNIST COUNTRY. Doing business with any Chinese business is DOING BUSINESS WITH THE GOVERNMENT.
All of you "OH NOES! GOOGLE IS TEH EVIL!!!11!eleventyone" people need to re-evaluate their lives. Do you all consider yourselves evil? No? How many of you are working on systems whose parts were manufactured in China? How many of your clothes and shoes were made there? How many objects can you find within ten feet of you right this second that were made in China? You are doing business in China, by buying their goods, but you are not evil. Why are you applying a double standard to Google?