The problem is that "I didn't pass on their resume" is an ambiguous sentence; did you mean that you would not pass it on (to the hiring committee), or that you would not "take a pass" on them? (I'm now aware that you meant the latter.) Without the benefit of mind-reading or vocal intonation, it's impossible to tell, and there are local variations in the relative use of the two meanings.
Just because it's crystal-clear to you doesn't mean it is to everyone else. After all, there's precious little context in a four-line post, and thus all the incredulity at the thought you would toss their application for not showing up in Google.
Anyone who judges someone from a bunch of random postings online when it comes to a job really needs to rethink their priorities.
Why? You have already demonstrated that you have poor impulse control and an inability to do something and keep your mouth shut about it. I don't really care if my employees smoke weed on their own time, but I sure as hell wouldn't hire somebody who walks in with pot-leaf t-shirts and has a bunch of bong-smoke photos on their website.
Your writing is unclear; their comprehension is just fine. While you meant that you "would not pass" on their application (ie, you would not skip it), they read it to mean that you would not "pass on" their application - ie you would not forward it to the next round.
If you can tolerate a higher up-front cost, T-Mobile's prepaid system is pretty nice. Buy a phone, sign up. Drop $100 once for 1000 minutes, and your minutes will not expire for 1 year after your last purchase of minutes. Cost thereafter is $10/year (minimum purchase of minutes needed to keep existing ones from expiring).
Don't know where you live, but in Mississippi, everything is subject to 7% sales tax. Food included.
A friend of mine in college worked at a drug store in NJ while in high school. She was full of stories about what was, or was not, subject to sales tax: toothbrushes are not, but toothpaste is; toilet paper (!) is. If that's not a necessity, I don't know what is.
As I say whenever the opportunity presents itself, my favorite sentence that means utterly different things in American and British English is "I was so pissed I couldn't find a fag when I had that torch."
And yet, at the point of harvesting, they can be used to build any structure you want, which is the fundamental problem with growing a house. Are you really certain you can predict - 20 or more years out - which cities will grow and which will not? It's fine for small things like park benches, but there are a lot of far simpler green construction methods for large structures.
Personally, I'd be fine with people putting buildings above sea level, but if you'd be flooded simply by cutting the Lake Pontchartrain levees on a clear day, you shouldn't be there. Look at the 1870s or 1880s map that the Times-Picayune dragged up: developed along the river and two ridges extending along (now) Gentilly Blvd and toward Metairie. Levees for flood control are great ideas, but building below sea level is just dumb.
Those who wish to argue that the Netherlands do so are free to point out the examples of the Netherlands being hit by actual hurricanes with actual storm surges. (Up-thread, someone posted a link to a story with 77-mph winds in the Netherlands. That's barely Cat 1 status and equivalent to what I saw - roughly 200 miles from the Gulf - during Katrina. And the North Sea, due to geography, can't develop the massive storm surge that Katrina did.)
Yes I know there are end cases where a big storm ripps them down through half a city but that is really not that common.
Well, some of us live in areas more prone to that than others - it's an unusual year around here that doesn't include a prolonged power outage. You're definitely right about burying main distribution lines, but neighborhood lines are much better off in the ground - people tend to get upset when their trees are carved up to keep them away from the lines, so it doesn't get done properly. My in-laws live in a neighborhood with buried lines that gets its distribution lines from poles on the surrounding major roads; they get power restored in about half the time we do after major storms.
It's not as though the ease of running new wires has gotten my area any super-hawt technology, either.
In the long run, older neighborhoods will elect to bury the unsightly mess
Really? Find me one. I'd love to figure out how they got the companies to do it. Despite the fact that above-ground lines are susceptible to all sorts of weather and tree-related damage that underground lines are not, they don't bury them. The last massive wind storm around here knocked down lines all over the city; several were not just little neighborhood lines but main power-telephone-cable links for 30k people (about a tenth of the city). Solution? New poles.
And then you get this. Yep, that's a knockoff of the Washington Monument. Compare it to this or this, which are at least architecturally interesting towers (move up and down the highway to get an idea of their appearance from several angles). At least the latter two aren't godawful monstrosities.
I'm generally in agreement with your point, but what if it's the first time you've ever tried it, and you honestly don't know what it's supposed to taste like? You might lose out on an immensely delicious dish just because the first time you ordered it you got sea rat instead.
If market-based incentives are a typical liberal response and "bureaucratic boondoggle" is in the liberal vocabulary where you live, I want to move there.
CAFE is crap for really reducing emissions; it gave us the SUV as family vehicle (because station wagons, the former family machine, were subject to CAFE as cars, but SUVs, as light trucks, were not). You want higher fuel efficiency, tax the hell out of gasoline and diesel the way the Europeans do. Simple and easily enforced.
CAFE is just another bureaucratic boondoggle, though it does have the merit that those who can afford larger cars subsidize the purchase of econoboxes.
I don't know how they select streets, but looking at where they drove in my city... I can't imagine anyone doing it. I wouldn't drive off a four-lane arterial in most of those areas without heavily armed guard.
Essentially correct. It's a violation of federal law, but not state law - the state cops will therefore not arrest you, although federal authorities may.
It's all complicated by the nature of the state-federal relationship. For example, there are cases in state courts which will not be accepted for review by the federal courts because they do not involve a federal issue. In those dealings the ruling of a state supreme court will be final.
If you want to keep it in perspective, remember that the theoretical basis for all of this was that the colonies all considered themselves independent nations after the American Revolution. They tried once, under the Articles of Confederation, to make a go of it with a very weak central government. That didn't work very well, so our current constitution was drawn up, giving more teeth to the central government - but still reserving powers to the states. At least in theory.
Well, states can't conduct war or foreign policy. But calling in the National Guard to put down riots isn't using them as "temporary cops" - it's using them as soldiers to quell a riot. And generally the Feds don't get too excited about such things.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that "I didn't pass on their resume" is an ambiguous sentence; did you mean that you would not pass it on (to the hiring committee), or that you would not "take a pass" on them? (I'm now aware that you meant the latter.) Without the benefit of mind-reading or vocal intonation, it's impossible to tell, and there are local variations in the relative use of the two meanings.
Just because it's crystal-clear to you doesn't mean it is to everyone else. After all, there's precious little context in a four-line post, and thus all the incredulity at the thought you would toss their application for not showing up in Google.
Mod parent up, most subtle correct use of affect/effect in /. history.
Anyone who judges someone from a bunch of random postings online when it comes to a job really needs to rethink their priorities.
Why? You have already demonstrated that you have poor impulse control and an inability to do something and keep your mouth shut about it. I don't really care if my employees smoke weed on their own time, but I sure as hell wouldn't hire somebody who walks in with pot-leaf t-shirts and has a bunch of bong-smoke photos on their website.
Your writing is unclear; their comprehension is just fine. While you meant that you "would not pass" on their application (ie, you would not skip it), they read it to mean that you would not "pass on" their application - ie you would not forward it to the next round.
Exactly. I can easily reject calls; I can't reject a text without rejecting all texts.
If you can tolerate a higher up-front cost, T-Mobile's prepaid system is pretty nice. Buy a phone, sign up. Drop $100 once for 1000 minutes, and your minutes will not expire for 1 year after your last purchase of minutes. Cost thereafter is $10/year (minimum purchase of minutes needed to keep existing ones from expiring).
a lot more polite in that letter than I would have expected from his books. A letter bomb wouldn't have surprised me
Ah, but bombs are expensive, and most people aren't worth the money.
A friend of mine in college worked at a drug store in NJ while in high school. She was full of stories about what was, or was not, subject to sales tax: toothbrushes are not, but toothpaste is; toilet paper (!) is. If that's not a necessity, I don't know what is.
As I say whenever the opportunity presents itself, my favorite sentence that means utterly different things in American and British English is "I was so pissed I couldn't find a fag when I had that torch."
AMA is much the same, for the same reason.
And yet, at the point of harvesting, they can be used to build any structure you want, which is the fundamental problem with growing a house. Are you really certain you can predict - 20 or more years out - which cities will grow and which will not? It's fine for small things like park benches, but there are a lot of far simpler green construction methods for large structures.
Those who wish to argue that the Netherlands do so are free to point out the examples of the Netherlands being hit by actual hurricanes with actual storm surges. (Up-thread, someone posted a link to a story with 77-mph winds in the Netherlands. That's barely Cat 1 status and equivalent to what I saw - roughly 200 miles from the Gulf - during Katrina. And the North Sea, due to geography, can't develop the massive storm surge that Katrina did.)
Ok, I'll bite: what has been around since specifically 1844? Photography and paper are older.
Yes I know there are end cases where a big storm ripps them down through half a city but that is really not that common.
Well, some of us live in areas more prone to that than others - it's an unusual year around here that doesn't include a prolonged power outage. You're definitely right about burying main distribution lines, but neighborhood lines are much better off in the ground - people tend to get upset when their trees are carved up to keep them away from the lines, so it doesn't get done properly. My in-laws live in a neighborhood with buried lines that gets its distribution lines from poles on the surrounding major roads; they get power restored in about half the time we do after major storms.
It's not as though the ease of running new wires has gotten my area any super-hawt technology, either.
They're at least 20 years old; I don't remember when exactly they were built, but remember the one in Ridgeland towering over the old Waterland USA.
In the long run, older neighborhoods will elect to bury the unsightly mess
Really? Find me one. I'd love to figure out how they got the companies to do it. Despite the fact that above-ground lines are susceptible to all sorts of weather and tree-related damage that underground lines are not, they don't bury them. The last massive wind storm around here knocked down lines all over the city; several were not just little neighborhood lines but main power-telephone-cable links for 30k people (about a tenth of the city). Solution? New poles.
And then you get this. Yep, that's a knockoff of the Washington Monument. Compare it to this or this, which are at least architecturally interesting towers (move up and down the highway to get an idea of their appearance from several angles). At least the latter two aren't godawful monstrosities.
I'm generally in agreement with your point, but what if it's the first time you've ever tried it, and you honestly don't know what it's supposed to taste like? You might lose out on an immensely delicious dish just because the first time you ordered it you got sea rat instead.
And a point I just forgot: there's no reason for the fuel tax increase to be monolithic; just raise it 50c/gal every year for 8 years.
Political feasibility is outside the realm of this inquiry :)
Such a typically liberal response...
If market-based incentives are a typical liberal response and "bureaucratic boondoggle" is in the liberal vocabulary where you live, I want to move there.
CAFE is just another bureaucratic boondoggle, though it does have the merit that those who can afford larger cars subsidize the purchase of econoboxes.
I don't know how they select streets, but looking at where they drove in my city... I can't imagine anyone doing it. I wouldn't drive off a four-lane arterial in most of those areas without heavily armed guard.
It's all complicated by the nature of the state-federal relationship. For example, there are cases in state courts which will not be accepted for review by the federal courts because they do not involve a federal issue. In those dealings the ruling of a state supreme court will be final.
If you want to keep it in perspective, remember that the theoretical basis for all of this was that the colonies all considered themselves independent nations after the American Revolution. They tried once, under the Articles of Confederation, to make a go of it with a very weak central government. That didn't work very well, so our current constitution was drawn up, giving more teeth to the central government - but still reserving powers to the states. At least in theory.
Well, states can't conduct war or foreign policy. But calling in the National Guard to put down riots isn't using them as "temporary cops" - it's using them as soldiers to quell a riot. And generally the Feds don't get too excited about such things.