No worker in America has pay which is "proportional to productivity". That's not how our system works.
As long as you've got CEOs making 200-400 times the pay of the average worker in the same corporation, it is impossible to have any pay which is "proportional".
It might be more appropriate to say that America's system works by salaries being proportional to responsibility. That is why a CEO makes the most in a corporation because he/she has the most responsibility. On the other hand, a pawn on the retail floor makes minimum wage because the scope of their decision making simply affects the rack of clothes in their department rather than the operations of the international enterprise making money off the clothes the pawn is selling. The pay scale is probably exponential from the pawn to the CEO, rising rapidly on the CxO end.
Who has the time to do a clean - professional-looking - edit of every episode of Law & Order?
I try to do that for American Chopper every week. Out of 152 episodes I'm only "missing" about 20 episodes and really missing about 3. The "missing" ones I actually have but want to re-record those episodes because I started recording them using coax rather than S-video so the quality isn't the greatest and I'm anal so I want my collection to be consistent (which is why I don't download them from anyone else). The other 3 or so the recording got messed up for one reason or another so I don't have them. Because I'm anal about how they look I make sure when I remove commercials that the cuts are clean and smooth (the way the show fades to commercials helps with this tremendously). I record the shows in 720x480 format (yes, I know they aren't broadcast in that resolution but it means I don't have to convert them to burn to DVD format), spend ~10 minutes removing commercials and then I burn 2 episodes to a DVD with a custom menu. I don't post my files anywhere online. I just do it for my personal use because I'm not going to spend $20 for *each* episode to buy them from discovery.com
That assumes that the 2 ends are different and that you don't need the entire piece of wood except the piece you were originally sawing off. If you need 4' piece of wood and if its too short you can't attach it but if it's too big it won't fit and your current piece is 5' then you need to cut 12" off it. If you cut 13" you made it fit but now you can't attach it because it is too short. Flipping the piece of wood around is not going to help your case because the length hasn't changed.
I'm not from the US, but isn't that the main bit of you guys' healthcare system that's most in need of fixing?
In my country, pre-existing conditions just mean that you can't claim anything for 12 months after joining. It doesn't affect premiums or anything, and no health insurance provider can reject your application.
Serps, why does the government have to provide healthcare in order to allow pre-existing conditions? Why should a government have to provide healthcare at all in order to fix healthcare provided by private industry? That's like Toyota saying that seatbelts used by Ford and Chrysler are designed wrong so instead of fixing the fundamental design and having Ford and Chrysler utilize that design (at cost or not) Toyota just starts making their own vehicles use the new seatbelt design. That doesn't guarantee that the other seatbelts by Ford/Chrysler get fixed. It doesn't fix the problem of seatbelts at the fundamental level. The reason is that the point isn't to fix the healthcare industry. The goal is to socialize it. We already have Medicare, Medicaid and SSI. Those are bleeding money so why should the U.S. people believe the government can run a bigger system better?
And how long does it take the government to enact the associated laws for the various governmental agencies to provide those goods and services? The government is innately slow and inefficient. That doesn't mean that *nothing* gets done but it means that it takes a very long time for something to get done and at a cost much higher than if it was done privately. Guess where that extra money must come from? Taxes. You want more government services and goods to be provided? Pay more taxes. You want more incentives to be given to people to trade in their vehicles or get money for buying a house? Pay more taxes. Bigger government isn't the answer unless you are of the lower class that believes the government should be their parents.
Most, if not all, of the items listed in that quoted text were regulations and laws instituted by the government with very little tangible items or services actually provided by the government. The government exists to institute laws and regulations. It does not exist to provide healthcare and many other social services. That is not their role and never has been (that doesn't stop them from still providing it though). Allowing the government to provide healthcare doesn't change how much it costs to provide that from the hospitals, doctors, etc. perspective. It only changes it from the customer's perspective which means the cost difference must be made up elsewhere (hence the need for higher taxes). Oh, and with all these people able to be insured now, where will all the doctors and nurses and surgeons come from to give them that service they are now paying for?
Obama wants socialized medicine to be instituted under the guise it will fix the underlying cost problem. Giving healthcare to everyone doesn't make the fundamental costs of goods and services magically cost less. It will just be subsidized by the government (through taxes) which totally misses the mark of making it cheaper. And people are falling for that just like they fell for everything else he said to fundamentally change this country into one that will fall faster than it was already. There are too many people in this country who believe people should have their wealth spread *by the gov't* rather than under their own control (through charity). No country using that model has ever been successful or a world superpower or with the freedoms that the U.S. began with 200+ years ago. I don't know why people think the U.S. would be any different by using the socialist model.
If Pelosi, Obama, et al. prefer a socialist state then let they be the first to have their salaries spread to the poor before they want many others' salaries revoked to be redistributed. Then we'll see if they still believe that spreading the wealth is good for everybody. In a socialist state it is only the government that thrives. If we ensure they do not thrive then maybe they won't be so adamant about instituting that economic model.
One problem is that we have too many people who are lazy and irresponsible and therefore want the government to run their lives. For that you need a big government and you need the upper class to help pay for the programs enacted by that big government.
On the other end of that cause/effect spectrum is evolution. Why do we have 2 legs? Evolution! Why do we have a liver? Evolution! Why do we require water to survive? Evolution! Evolution is the answer to everything and the answer to nothing at the same time.
Seriously. I actually like iTunes, but damn is it a resource hog. Sometimes it will chew up 90%+ of CPU for no apparent reason. It will often be unresponsive to clicks for a couple seconds. I am not sure what is so complicated about a music player that causes this.
And then every time it asks me for an upgrade, it insists on installing Quicktime and other things that I don't want on my PC.
I don't use Macs, but wonder if all of Steve's apps behave this way...
Not just his....on my home PC Opera 9.x decided to do this every so often. It is very annoying and I stopped using it and now use Firefox for everything. I have the problem at work too with Excel, Visio and IE 7. They just hang for a few seconds and I can't do anything with them. I don't know offhand if the CPU spikes but I lose at least 5 minutes of productivity a day because of it. That isn't much but it is frustrating and it shouldn't be happening at all.
I would still wipe and load for corporate purposes to be sure the machines are 100% the same).
In a corporation you would build an image first and deploy that image to all machines so they are all the same. Of course, a few images are also sufficient but the point being that imaging ensures they are all the same and it is much faster than doing a wipe of each system first. All user data should be on the servers so there shouldn't be a reason why this wouldn't work.
If you remove the religious connotation and simply refer to it as "a mutual contract", you might start to see the absurdity of your claim.
Using that logic, by removing the religious aspect of marriage a gay couple can still have a civil union ceremony to recognize their relationship. They have no legal right to a traditional marriage and they shouldn't be trying to hijack the religious institution of marriage, which occurs in the eyes of God, for their perverted reasons. It is absurd to allow them to take a religious institution, whose religious foundation is against homosexuality, and use it as their own.
False equivalence. One is a conscious, sentient adult, the other is an animal. Or an inanimate object. You're an idiot.
It isn't false equivalence. If any given state law doesn't specify a human then there is no reason why both wouldn't be allowed and therefore be rendered equivalent.
So if skin colour was a choice you'd be happy to discriminate? Gotcha. You're a hateful, dumb, bigot.
So you are going to hire someone who has been convicted of money laundering to work in your bank? Would you marry someone convicted of mass murder? People make decisions about someone based on their knowledge of that person's decisions all the time. I guess we are all hateful, dumb bigots. Quit being so quick to call someone who opposes homosexuality a bigot.
Totally irrelevant. If it's a choice it's their choice, not yours, and doesn't affect you in any way.
No, it doesn't affect me personally but that doesn't mean there are no repercussions at all. You are too short-sighted.
Nobody's asking for special treatment, they're asking for equal treatment, and you're clutching at straws to try and deny it.
Marriage isn't a right. Period.
Liberal used as an invective (sure sign of an underdeveloped brain), non-sequiturs galore and yet more crap.
Not quite. It was used as a proper noun, and yes without capitalization. Just like a conservative can be a person. Those two nouns have specific connotations. I believe you have no room to talk after calling me a hateful, dumb bigot for no reason. I suppose because I'm *opposed* to *illegal immigration*, not immigrants themselves, then I must be a racist or a bigot. For those who, like yourself, are quick to do the name calling for lack of a counter-argument I can understand why you do so inaccurately. You choose to attack the grammar rather than actual content, and yes there was content, no matter how opposed you are to what it said.
Why is sexual preference linked to responsibility? What is irresponsible about homosexuality? And I'm not inviting you to spew more stereotypical nonsense about promiscuity here, what is irresponsible about the fact of homosexuality itself?
Let me spell it out for your underdeveloped brain. It has nothing to do with their behavior so shut up and listen. Liberals largely believe there is no personal responsibility. Let someone else take care of it. It isn't your fault. You were born that way. Let the government take care of you. You can vegetate on the couch while we send you money every month. If you are deemed born as a homosexual then it isn't your fault (i.e. no responsibility) so then the laws must be updated to account for that human deficiency.
Basically, you're wrong and pretty dumb. Or a troll, I'm not sure which.
Don't end a sentence with a preposition. It is a sure sign of an underdeveloped brain.
For most people it is the right thing to do. That's like asking when did someone choose to begin stealing or killing. At a certain point in life innocence is lost. Then the choices are made such as whether to be homosexual, partake in bestiality, etc. I don't have to choose to not be a murderer but I do have to choose to murder. The correlation being that in the beginning, at birth, we are all heterosexual. If it was due to genetics people wouldn't choose to revert back to being heterosexual but they can so obviously the genes aren't there. Personally, my belief is that God wouldn't punish someone for being born a certain way. The Holy Bible states that homosexuals will not make it into Heaven. It is our choices that distinguish us from each other. That is why I know people aren't born to be homosexual. You can choose to disagree but that doesn't warrant a Troll moderation (for those who already showed that they disagreed).
Just to enjoy the intolerance of a bunch of religious wackos,
Who is showing their intolerance now? I can tolerate homosexuals. They can do whatever they want with their life. What I don't tolerate is the fact they feel they should get special treatment, like someone who is born in a racial minority. They also want others to accept their lifestyle. That isn't my job to agree with what they chose. They have already proved they don't agree with heterosexuals so why should heterosexuals agree with them? I agree there are racial inequalities and I don't agree with them; someone can't help (and they shouldn't have to) what race they are or from what ethnic background they come from. Although Affirmative Action went too far I think in some cases. Someone shouldn't get special treatment for the decisions they make. They also shouldn't have special protections. When you give a group of people who make a certain decision special protections (i.e. the new Hate Crimes bill trying to be passed right now) *that's* when you instill societal inequalities. I don't agree with a homosexual person being almost killed. That person should be charged with attempted murder but that doesn't mean the gay person being beaten deserves special protections to a heterosexual. If they do then that is saying homosexuals are better and more important than heterosexuals and therefore any crime against them deserves to be prosecuted more severely than a crime against a heterosexual.
I saw an article on Yahoo! the other day about an interracial couple being denied their wedding license for being interracial. In the article, it stated that the constitution says that we can marry "whoever we want".
Shame that's not true. Oh well...as they say, it's the old people that are opposing gay marriage the most. We just have to wait a few years, then we can re-send gay marriage laws all over the country and finally get this biblical fear knocked out. I mean really, what year is it?
For laws that are even less specific, would you prefer to have the ability (or let others have the ability) to marry animals or inanimate objects? Where exactly do you prefer to set the moral standard for marriage if not between a man and a woman? I agree there is nothing wrong with interracial couples under the premise a person has no control over their race however I'm also someone who believes a person *does* have control over their sexual preferences and therefore should not get special treatment if they choose a preference that goes against societal standards. And it is those societal standards that continue to be tested in the West and the people continue to show they are against gay marriage (not so much in the New England states or in San Francisco though). Of course, if you are a liberal who believes there is no personal responsibility and by extension you have no control over your sexual preferences then you believes that you are being treated unfairly in the eyes of the law when you are told you cannot marry someone of the same sex. The lack of personal responsibility is a major issue in American society today that needs remedied, fast.
then we can re-send gay marriage laws
By the way, your use of the word "re-send" is not correct. I believe you mean "rescind".
Is your next employer(s) a highly religious zealot?
So it is a bad thing now to enforce (do as I do not as I say-type thing) what you truly believe in? I guess as long as what you believe in stems from what someone else believes in and if there is a deity involved then it must be considered zealotry.
The last two Dell laptops I've owned each lasted well over 5 years with no problems.
Macs may have their advantages, but IMHO build quality is not one of them. You know, to be brutally honest.
So I guess you are saying your Dell laptops are representative of all Dell laptops ever made and your MBP is representative of all MBPs ever made therefore Dell is awesome and Apple is horrible at manufacturing laptops?
Group Policy implementing a screensaver that comes on after 15 minutes of idle time that is also password-protected can also work, at least for Windows-based workstations.
Some of the top selling games are ones that have a good deal of complexity to them (the Sims being a great example), not the sort of thing that competes with a cellphone game.
I don't mean to burst your bubble but a few days ago I was browsing the iTunes Store and noticed the Sims 3 is available. I don't know how that version compares to the PC version though.
Slashdot Mirror
No worker in America has pay which is "proportional to productivity". That's not how our system works. As long as you've got CEOs making 200-400 times the pay of the average worker in the same corporation, it is impossible to have any pay which is "proportional".
It might be more appropriate to say that America's system works by salaries being proportional to responsibility. That is why a CEO makes the most in a corporation because he/she has the most responsibility. On the other hand, a pawn on the retail floor makes minimum wage because the scope of their decision making simply affects the rack of clothes in their department rather than the operations of the international enterprise making money off the clothes the pawn is selling. The pay scale is probably exponential from the pawn to the CEO, rising rapidly on the CxO end.
Who has the time to do a clean - professional-looking - edit of every episode of Law & Order?
I try to do that for American Chopper every week. Out of 152 episodes I'm only "missing" about 20 episodes and really missing about 3. The "missing" ones I actually have but want to re-record those episodes because I started recording them using coax rather than S-video so the quality isn't the greatest and I'm anal so I want my collection to be consistent (which is why I don't download them from anyone else). The other 3 or so the recording got messed up for one reason or another so I don't have them. Because I'm anal about how they look I make sure when I remove commercials that the cuts are clean and smooth (the way the show fades to commercials helps with this tremendously). I record the shows in 720x480 format (yes, I know they aren't broadcast in that resolution but it means I don't have to convert them to burn to DVD format), spend ~10 minutes removing commercials and then I burn 2 episodes to a DVD with a custom menu. I don't post my files anywhere online. I just do it for my personal use because I'm not going to spend $20 for *each* episode to buy them from discovery.com
Medicare and Medicaid are health insurance policies but SSI isn't. SSI is disability insurance.
Thanks falcon. I wasn't aware of the differences although not sure if they really matter in this case since none of them are being run correctly. :)
Use the other end of the piece of wood?
That assumes that the 2 ends are different and that you don't need the entire piece of wood except the piece you were originally sawing off. If you need 4' piece of wood and if its too short you can't attach it but if it's too big it won't fit and your current piece is 5' then you need to cut 12" off it. If you cut 13" you made it fit but now you can't attach it because it is too short. Flipping the piece of wood around is not going to help your case because the length hasn't changed.
I'm not from the US, but isn't that the main bit of you guys' healthcare system that's most in need of fixing? In my country, pre-existing conditions just mean that you can't claim anything for 12 months after joining. It doesn't affect premiums or anything, and no health insurance provider can reject your application.
Serps, why does the government have to provide healthcare in order to allow pre-existing conditions? Why should a government have to provide healthcare at all in order to fix healthcare provided by private industry? That's like Toyota saying that seatbelts used by Ford and Chrysler are designed wrong so instead of fixing the fundamental design and having Ford and Chrysler utilize that design (at cost or not) Toyota just starts making their own vehicles use the new seatbelt design. That doesn't guarantee that the other seatbelts by Ford/Chrysler get fixed. It doesn't fix the problem of seatbelts at the fundamental level. The reason is that the point isn't to fix the healthcare industry. The goal is to socialize it. We already have Medicare, Medicaid and SSI. Those are bleeding money so why should the U.S. people believe the government can run a bigger system better?
And how long does it take the government to enact the associated laws for the various governmental agencies to provide those goods and services? The government is innately slow and inefficient. That doesn't mean that *nothing* gets done but it means that it takes a very long time for something to get done and at a cost much higher than if it was done privately. Guess where that extra money must come from? Taxes. You want more government services and goods to be provided? Pay more taxes. You want more incentives to be given to people to trade in their vehicles or get money for buying a house? Pay more taxes. Bigger government isn't the answer unless you are of the lower class that believes the government should be their parents.
Most, if not all, of the items listed in that quoted text were regulations and laws instituted by the government with very little tangible items or services actually provided by the government. The government exists to institute laws and regulations. It does not exist to provide healthcare and many other social services. That is not their role and never has been (that doesn't stop them from still providing it though). Allowing the government to provide healthcare doesn't change how much it costs to provide that from the hospitals, doctors, etc. perspective. It only changes it from the customer's perspective which means the cost difference must be made up elsewhere (hence the need for higher taxes). Oh, and with all these people able to be insured now, where will all the doctors and nurses and surgeons come from to give them that service they are now paying for?
Obama wants socialized medicine to be instituted under the guise it will fix the underlying cost problem. Giving healthcare to everyone doesn't make the fundamental costs of goods and services magically cost less. It will just be subsidized by the government (through taxes) which totally misses the mark of making it cheaper. And people are falling for that just like they fell for everything else he said to fundamentally change this country into one that will fall faster than it was already. There are too many people in this country who believe people should have their wealth spread *by the gov't* rather than under their own control (through charity). No country using that model has ever been successful or a world superpower or with the freedoms that the U.S. began with 200+ years ago. I don't know why people think the U.S. would be any different by using the socialist model.
If Pelosi, Obama, et al. prefer a socialist state then let they be the first to have their salaries spread to the poor before they want many others' salaries revoked to be redistributed. Then we'll see if they still believe that spreading the wealth is good for everybody. In a socialist state it is only the government that thrives. If we ensure they do not thrive then maybe they won't be so adamant about instituting that economic model.
One problem is that we have too many people who are lazy and irresponsible and therefore want the government to run their lives. For that you need a big government and you need the upper class to help pay for the programs enacted by that big government.
On the other end of that cause/effect spectrum is evolution. Why do we have 2 legs? Evolution! Why do we have a liver? Evolution! Why do we require water to survive? Evolution! Evolution is the answer to everything and the answer to nothing at the same time.
Go to your local Walmart and count how many products contain "high fructose corn syrup" Now who's the corn-worshiping culture?
Don't forget ethanol.
Seriously. I actually like iTunes, but damn is it a resource hog. Sometimes it will chew up 90%+ of CPU for no apparent reason. It will often be unresponsive to clicks for a couple seconds. I am not sure what is so complicated about a music player that causes this. And then every time it asks me for an upgrade, it insists on installing Quicktime and other things that I don't want on my PC. I don't use Macs, but wonder if all of Steve's apps behave this way...
Not just his....on my home PC Opera 9.x decided to do this every so often. It is very annoying and I stopped using it and now use Firefox for everything. I have the problem at work too with Excel, Visio and IE 7. They just hang for a few seconds and I can't do anything with them. I don't know offhand if the CPU spikes but I lose at least 5 minutes of productivity a day because of it. That isn't much but it is frustrating and it shouldn't be happening at all.
I would still wipe and load for corporate purposes to be sure the machines are 100% the same).
In a corporation you would build an image first and deploy that image to all machines so they are all the same. Of course, a few images are also sufficient but the point being that imaging ensures they are all the same and it is much faster than doing a wipe of each system first. All user data should be on the servers so there shouldn't be a reason why this wouldn't work.
If you remove the religious connotation and simply refer to it as "a mutual contract", you might start to see the absurdity of your claim.
Using that logic, by removing the religious aspect of marriage a gay couple can still have a civil union ceremony to recognize their relationship. They have no legal right to a traditional marriage and they shouldn't be trying to hijack the religious institution of marriage, which occurs in the eyes of God, for their perverted reasons. It is absurd to allow them to take a religious institution, whose religious foundation is against homosexuality, and use it as their own.
False equivalence. One is a conscious, sentient adult, the other is an animal. Or an inanimate object. You're an idiot.
It isn't false equivalence. If any given state law doesn't specify a human then there is no reason why both wouldn't be allowed and therefore be rendered equivalent.
So if skin colour was a choice you'd be happy to discriminate? Gotcha. You're a hateful, dumb, bigot.
So you are going to hire someone who has been convicted of money laundering to work in your bank? Would you marry someone convicted of mass murder? People make decisions about someone based on their knowledge of that person's decisions all the time. I guess we are all hateful, dumb bigots. Quit being so quick to call someone who opposes homosexuality a bigot.
Totally irrelevant. If it's a choice it's their choice, not yours, and doesn't affect you in any way.
No, it doesn't affect me personally but that doesn't mean there are no repercussions at all. You are too short-sighted.
Nobody's asking for special treatment, they're asking for equal treatment, and you're clutching at straws to try and deny it.
Marriage isn't a right. Period.
Liberal used as an invective (sure sign of an underdeveloped brain), non-sequiturs galore and yet more crap.
Not quite. It was used as a proper noun, and yes without capitalization. Just like a conservative can be a person. Those two nouns have specific connotations. I believe you have no room to talk after calling me a hateful, dumb bigot for no reason. I suppose because I'm *opposed* to *illegal immigration*, not immigrants themselves, then I must be a racist or a bigot. For those who, like yourself, are quick to do the name calling for lack of a counter-argument I can understand why you do so inaccurately. You choose to attack the grammar rather than actual content, and yes there was content, no matter how opposed you are to what it said.
Why is sexual preference linked to responsibility? What is irresponsible about homosexuality? And I'm not inviting you to spew more stereotypical nonsense about promiscuity here, what is irresponsible about the fact of homosexuality itself?
Let me spell it out for your underdeveloped brain. It has nothing to do with their behavior so shut up and listen. Liberals largely believe there is no personal responsibility. Let someone else take care of it. It isn't your fault. You were born that way. Let the government take care of you. You can vegetate on the couch while we send you money every month. If you are deemed born as a homosexual then it isn't your fault (i.e. no responsibility) so then the laws must be updated to account for that human deficiency.
Basically, you're wrong and pretty dumb. Or a troll, I'm not sure which.
Don't end a sentence with a preposition. It is a sure sign of an underdeveloped brain.
So when did you choose to be a heterosexual?
For most people it is the right thing to do. That's like asking when did someone choose to begin stealing or killing. At a certain point in life innocence is lost. Then the choices are made such as whether to be homosexual, partake in bestiality, etc. I don't have to choose to not be a murderer but I do have to choose to murder. The correlation being that in the beginning, at birth, we are all heterosexual. If it was due to genetics people wouldn't choose to revert back to being heterosexual but they can so obviously the genes aren't there. Personally, my belief is that God wouldn't punish someone for being born a certain way. The Holy Bible states that homosexuals will not make it into Heaven. It is our choices that distinguish us from each other. That is why I know people aren't born to be homosexual. You can choose to disagree but that doesn't warrant a Troll moderation (for those who already showed that they disagreed).
Just to enjoy the intolerance of a bunch of religious wackos,
Who is showing their intolerance now? I can tolerate homosexuals. They can do whatever they want with their life. What I don't tolerate is the fact they feel they should get special treatment, like someone who is born in a racial minority. They also want others to accept their lifestyle. That isn't my job to agree with what they chose. They have already proved they don't agree with heterosexuals so why should heterosexuals agree with them? I agree there are racial inequalities and I don't agree with them; someone can't help (and they shouldn't have to) what race they are or from what ethnic background they come from. Although Affirmative Action went too far I think in some cases. Someone shouldn't get special treatment for the decisions they make. They also shouldn't have special protections. When you give a group of people who make a certain decision special protections (i.e. the new Hate Crimes bill trying to be passed right now) *that's* when you instill societal inequalities. I don't agree with a homosexual person being almost killed. That person should be charged with attempted murder but that doesn't mean the gay person being beaten deserves special protections to a heterosexual. If they do then that is saying homosexuals are better and more important than heterosexuals and therefore any crime against them deserves to be prosecuted more severely than a crime against a heterosexual.
I saw an article on Yahoo! the other day about an interracial couple being denied their wedding license for being interracial. In the article, it stated that the constitution says that we can marry "whoever we want". Shame that's not true. Oh well...as they say, it's the old people that are opposing gay marriage the most. We just have to wait a few years, then we can re-send gay marriage laws all over the country and finally get this biblical fear knocked out. I mean really, what year is it?
For laws that are even less specific, would you prefer to have the ability (or let others have the ability) to marry animals or inanimate objects? Where exactly do you prefer to set the moral standard for marriage if not between a man and a woman? I agree there is nothing wrong with interracial couples under the premise a person has no control over their race however I'm also someone who believes a person *does* have control over their sexual preferences and therefore should not get special treatment if they choose a preference that goes against societal standards. And it is those societal standards that continue to be tested in the West and the people continue to show they are against gay marriage (not so much in the New England states or in San Francisco though). Of course, if you are a liberal who believes there is no personal responsibility and by extension you have no control over your sexual preferences then you believes that you are being treated unfairly in the eyes of the law when you are told you cannot marry someone of the same sex. The lack of personal responsibility is a major issue in American society today that needs remedied, fast.
then we can re-send gay marriage laws
By the way, your use of the word "re-send" is not correct. I believe you mean "rescind".
Is your next employer(s) a highly religious zealot?
So it is a bad thing now to enforce (do as I do not as I say-type thing) what you truly believe in? I guess as long as what you believe in stems from what someone else believes in and if there is a deity involved then it must be considered zealotry.
Climate change, perhaps?
Yeah, otherwise known as the four seasons.
I'm sure the US government will just as efficient running our health care system :(
*sarcasm*You racist!*sarcasm*
though it probably lacks sex scandal capabilities.
A daughter card provides that additional functionality.
to being able to implement this at home and at work to word towards replacing Windows Server 2003.
Oh well, guess I should have payed more attention in class as a kid...
Ya think?
The technical ebook newsgroup has thousands of interesting ebooks and emagazines.
The last two Dell laptops I've owned each lasted well over 5 years with no problems. Macs may have their advantages, but IMHO build quality is not one of them. You know, to be brutally honest.
So I guess you are saying your Dell laptops are representative of all Dell laptops ever made and your MBP is representative of all MBPs ever made therefore Dell is awesome and Apple is horrible at manufacturing laptops?
Group Policy implementing a screensaver that comes on after 15 minutes of idle time that is also password-protected can also work, at least for Windows-based workstations.
Some of the top selling games are ones that have a good deal of complexity to them (the Sims being a great example), not the sort of thing that competes with a cellphone game.
I don't mean to burst your bubble but a few days ago I was browsing the iTunes Store and noticed the Sims 3 is available. I don't know how that version compares to the PC version though.