for use of vulgar language in meetings... how can getting fired be healthy for you?
The point of the article is that being in an environment that allows greater freedom of expression is good for you. Not that swearing when it's inappropriate or against policy is good for you.
Though I've sworn at a client that was late in paying me $3000. But I was essentially in a situation where I had to demonstrate the fact that I owned (pwnd, rather) all their data before they paid me. So I felt rather justified.
I actually liked Sims, and played it casually for a couple weeks. I think the most enjoyable part is when your house catches on fire, and the Sim starts screaming in gibberish.:-) Hoooooooooobla! afff! Rohhh! fleevlee!
I think working on a computer doesn't give your body the time to recover. I've found with my carpal tunnel, it's broadly a result of myself being unhappy and working long hours on the computer. Specifically, I tend to hunch more while at the computer, and it throws my shoulders forward. This puts leaning pressure on my forearms, and also adds tension around my rotator cuff. I've found that the MAJORITY of my "carpal tunnel syndrome" is resolved when my mom, a massage therapist, does deep myofascial work in my armpits.
So two things: 1. I concur completely with the sibling poster about the Mind-Body connection. 2. Carpal tunnel generally originates in the shoulders, and focusing your attempts at rehabilitation on your shoulders will yield better results.
When my cts got really bad one time, the armpit work was one of the worst pains I EVER experienced, followed by a week in which I would notice that I hadn't been thinking about my wrists all day.
There's sort of bestiality by inference, and if your character walked around sodom and gomorrah, you'd probably see it. But really, isn't incest, rape, torture, incineration, and baby-killing enough for you?
My father chastised you with whips...I will chastise you with scorpions Best fucking quote in the world, EVAR!!!111one
It's pretty hard to legitemately mischarge this kind of service. I consider it to be pretty obvious that someone managed to get stuff for less and when they got busted, they had to charge the remaining sum.
They could have learned from the Republicans and just denied it until forever. If it WAS an honest mistake, there would be no reason to pay. Which, I admit, it probably wasn't.
I'm not trying to rag on Republicans. They're just evil and smooth, whereas the Dems are sort of evil and awkwardly self-loathing. And I don't mean all of them on either side.
When I voted in 2004, I voted in a poor neighborhood in FL. I was an early voter, and I had a 2 hour wait. My mother and brother had a 4 hour wait, also early voters. My boss Paul, who lives in a rich Republican area (Snell Isle, to all y'all Tampons) left work on voting day, and was back 30 minutes later. I suspect it took him 15 minutes to vote. My then-girlfriend, who lived in a Republican rich neighborhood voted the day of, and she just walked right in.
Their was tons of voter disenfranchisement, specifically of black people, in the 2000 election. There were many leaders of the black community who came before the Senate to request audience, and anyone--Al Gore included--could have stepped forward to grant it. Noone did. Not even Al Gore. Kerry promised he would not remain quiet if there was election fraud. Look into what happened in Ohio, where voting locations in swing districts were shut down by the FBI. More people voted for George Bush than were registered voters in certain districts. Some districts registered negative votes for Kerry. Not a motherfucking peep from that ketchup loving traitor to his people.
The only thing I can conclude with the admittedly spare rationality that the good (non-Judeo Christian) lord has bestowed upon me is that we were put on as a country by the most elaborate scam artists in the world, and Al Gore and John Kerry were merely shills for the Republican party.
How can you fucking lose to a turd sandwich? Honestly. Of all the Democrats, the Democratic party refused to pick anyone with any testicles. Hillary has more testicles than those guys. Though I don't really trust that snizz, either, because she won't tell us what the fuck her plans are in regards to shooting foreigners. Way to inspire confidence.
Two weeks ago, MoveOn was forced to pay an additional $77,508 following media reports that The Times gave the group a substantial discount for the full-page display attacking Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the American forces in Iraq.
The newspaper initially said MoveOn was charged $64,575, the "standby" rate for advocacy groups with full-page, black-and-white displays that can run anytime during a one-week period.
MoveOn, however, had requested Monday, Sept. 10, the first day of Petraeus' testimony before Congress on the U.S. military surge in Iraq. Because the ad ran on the date requested, The Times later acknowledged that it should have charged MoveOn $142,083.
So the Times accidentally undercharged them, then gets to call up several weeks later and demand the rest of the money? MoveOn.org should have done what I do in cases like this: Send them a bill for additional handling and paperwork for the sum that they're requesting.
Since when do you get to charge someone one amount, deliver the product, and AFTER the fact say, "By the way, we messed up, and you owe us twice as much?" Is this just a case of liberals not being able to stand their ground again? What the hell is wrong with these people that they can't just say that the transaction has taken place, and there's no remedy? I mean, I understand the NY Times going after the money to protect their journalistic credibility, but MoveOn should've thumbed their nose at them, based solely upon the fact that that's not how business works.
I'm not saying that it's a bad game, I'm just saying that that sentence is logically contradictory.
I'll save GP some time: Dumbed-down is not the same as less complex. Dumbed-down is not the opposite of complex. Dumbed down means 'Made More Stupider' whereas less complex means 'not quite so intricate.' GP was indicating this point, and stating that it had plenty of artistic and stylistic merit in its own right. Doom is not Risk dumbed-down. Doom is Doom. Risk is Risk.
I have a special hatred for video games that have a f'(x)=infinity learning curve and stump you after 9 seconds of playing. It's just not fun..
Dude, that intro sequence is like 30 minutes the first time through. And anyway, SS2 is definitely one of the best games of all time. I'm sorry it frustrated you so much.
Given the choice between friends and System Shock 2, I would probably go with friends. Probably.
Excellent post. I came off as a little more anti-patent than I actually am. I think the current patent system is ridiculous. I think that patenting methods is completely stupid, because the way our brains function dictates the 'best' way of displaying something. Patenting a playlist view is like patenting an input system that can be operated by people with 4 fingers and an opposable thumb on each hand.
But I do think they CAN be beneficial. Just make the term shorter, and clarify all the stuff surrounding technology. And shoot Dick Cheney in the face with birdshot, just in case that helps.
"In the current patent system, the so-called "inventors", if they're too puny to defend their patents in an expensive long-term legal struggle, well they can meet with the established companies have them steal your invention."
Who will step up to continue to innovate, knowing that all of their R&D is only good for a few months at best before somebody else can get a duplicate to market?
Someone who will have saves millions of dollars on the R&D of previous companies. In fact, the previous company you're talking about got to save millions of dollars on R&D, too, because they didn't have to spend 3 years coming up with a new way to get to where the original patent holder is already without infringing.
The fundamental difference between you and GP is that you think that people should have some sort of entitlement because they have an idea, and GP doesn't, necessarily. There's a lot that goes into being valuable to society. For example:
I have Idea, and want to get it to market. However, I am terrible at implementing Idea. Idea is a great great idea, but my product is not. OtherCo comes by and sees my shitty product on the market, and thinks they can do better. So they take Idea and use their own ideas to create GoodIdea. GoodIdea is a good product, whereas my product is crap. I start seeing losses in sales, because GoodIdea just makes more sense then Idea. So I take GoodIdea, and add a couple things that I learned while supporting Idea, and come up with VeryGoodIdea.
In the above model creates 2 good products, starting from one good idea that turned out to be a bad product. If my original idea had been really good, I could have coasted on it for a long long time, but it wasn't, so I couldn't.
they're using the same logic that they use to set the penalty for one hit of acid to 20 years in prison, irreducible: That it's 'child abuse' because a child might get his hands on it.
Not if I eat it first, he won't. And it's a purely hypothetical argument, which leads me to ask: When did we start prosecuting people for hypothetical crimes?
I agree, but I still think that in a fair system, paying what you would owe, plus a percentage of your annual salary would make a lot of sense. like 10%, and like I said, your kids can eat meat less often, or 20%, they also don't get to see movies for a year, or 30%, and bye bye cable (which I think would be a good thing anyway). Not that any of those changes would compensate.
The thing that gets me is that these big corporations are prosecuting based on theoretical numbers, and yet they still somehow get on the order of $10k per song. It's entirely theoretical. For example, I downloaded Hit Me Baby One More Time once. I am not going to buy the CD. The song was worth about $.30 to me in enjoyment, and if I could send them $.30 to have it, maybe I would. But now when I purchase a CD, I'm breaking the law by putting it on my MP3 player, I'm breaking the law by burning a mix CD for someone (which is fucking stupid, I'm sorry. It's free advertising). In Spanish, a CD player is called a reproductor de CDs, which means reproducer. There is a fine, imaginary line between copying and playing back to begin with, and they're edging me back into a corner. If they had their way, you'd have to pay for multiperson licenses if you wanted your friends to listen to it.
The RIAA is collecting royalties from online radio stations that play indpendent artists' songs, and they say that if the artist wants their royalties, they just have to contact the RIAA. Fucking BAH! I don't want to be associated with the RIAA. How do I release my music under a license that is free from abuse by the RIAA? Do they own copyright, and get to decide what that means?
So, to summarize: 1. I hate the RIAA 2. Anything the RIAA does can and will be used against them in a court of my mind 3. I will infringe on an artist's copyright, and they send them the $0.10 they would've gotten from my CD purchase from the RIAA 4. The RIAA has built a house made of lies, corruption, and hatred for their customers, so I refuse to be one of their customers 5. If the RIAA has a where the sun don't shine, I would appreciate them sticking it there
grew up in mexico, sorry about the american legal system faux pas. I appreciate you clarifying this for my benefit and the benefit of others, however, I wasn't trying to be accurate. I'm sure she was informed by many many people that she'd broken the law before the plaintiff got a good look at her.
I'm implying that you'd have to be a fogie to believe that watching the new Dr. Who episodes was necessary to geekdom. As wonderful as Dr. Who is, I don't think that just because I'm a geek, I should watch every episode of a remake of an old television show.
You can pry my geek badge from my cold dead fingers, just like I got my fogie badge.:)
and secondly, if she did all that trickery, wouldn't it be plausible that she did shared *knowing* that it was illegal?
I think she was probably informed by the prosecution that she had broken the law. But I could be wrong. Those RIAA lawyers are wacky.
the fines are in the "low" side of the possible spectrum (from $750 to $150,000). Just consider she could have faced a $3'600,000 fine... now THAT would be outrageous.
If I'm ever on a jury and I disagree with the spectrum for something like the 'theft' of 'intellectual property,' I'm going with not guilty. I don't think it's fair to charge 220,000 for 25 songs, which works out in the neighborhood of $9,000 per song. Let's just pretend she got songs from 25 different CDs, and that the CDs are $20 apiece. That's only $500 that she could have possibly ACTUALLY stolen. In theory. How about we then fine her half a year's salary, say, ohhhhh $15k, and her kids have to eat ramen, don't get vitamins, and get to go to community college on pell grants. now THAT'S reasonable.
$220k? Not fucking reasonable. At a dollar per song, that's 220,000 people that downloaded it from her. What the fuck? This did not happen. I personally object to the whole thing based on the RIAA's:
1. 100-year reputation of treating artists and consumers like shit 2. argument that copyright infringement is theft, when last time I checked, theft was measured by the material loss of the victim. 3. everything else. I'm getting tired. -Nathan
I think he might be saying that time is a dimension and math is not, so your reductive snarky comment wasn't helpful, kind, or true. So you shouldn't have said it, according to Socrates.
Slashdot Mirror
The point of the article is that being in an environment that allows greater freedom of expression is good for you. Not that swearing when it's inappropriate or against policy is good for you.
Though I've sworn at a client that was late in paying me $3000. But I was essentially in a situation where I had to demonstrate the fact that I owned (pwnd, rather) all their data before they paid me. So I felt rather justified.
I actually liked Sims, and played it casually for a couple weeks. I think the most enjoyable part is when your house catches on fire, and the Sim starts screaming in gibberish. :-)
Hoooooooooobla! afff! Rohhh! fleevlee!
I think working on a computer doesn't give your body the time to recover. I've found with my carpal tunnel, it's broadly a result of myself being unhappy and working long hours on the computer. Specifically, I tend to hunch more while at the computer, and it throws my shoulders forward. This puts leaning pressure on my forearms, and also adds tension around my rotator cuff. I've found that the MAJORITY of my "carpal tunnel syndrome" is resolved when my mom, a massage therapist, does deep myofascial work in my armpits.
So two things:
1. I concur completely with the sibling poster about the Mind-Body connection.
2. Carpal tunnel generally originates in the shoulders, and focusing your attempts at rehabilitation on your shoulders will yield better results.
When my cts got really bad one time, the armpit work was one of the worst pains I EVER experienced, followed by a week in which I would notice that I hadn't been thinking about my wrists all day.
OK, maybe not bestiality, but they did fuck rocks painted to look like God
There's sort of bestiality by inference, and if your character walked around sodom and gomorrah, you'd probably see it. But really, isn't incest, rape, torture, incineration, and baby-killing enough for you?
My father chastised you with whips...I will chastise you with scorpions
Best fucking quote in the world, EVAR!!!111one
That's why they make video games out of them. People don't want to pay for a regular real life simulator, because what then would be the point?
Or to quote Bill Watterson, via Hobbes:
"Quick! To the Bat-FAAAAAAAX!"
They could have learned from the Republicans and just denied it until forever. If it WAS an honest mistake, there would be no reason to pay. Which, I admit, it probably wasn't.
I'm not trying to rag on Republicans. They're just evil and smooth, whereas the Dems are sort of evil and awkwardly self-loathing. And I don't mean all of them on either side.
Actually, replacing Harrison Ford with some toast would probably improve the acting in most of his movies.
When I voted in 2004, I voted in a poor neighborhood in FL. I was an early voter, and I had a 2 hour wait. My mother and brother had a 4 hour wait, also early voters. My boss Paul, who lives in a rich Republican area (Snell Isle, to all y'all Tampons) left work on voting day, and was back 30 minutes later. I suspect it took him 15 minutes to vote. My then-girlfriend, who lived in a Republican rich neighborhood voted the day of, and she just walked right in.
Their was tons of voter disenfranchisement, specifically of black people, in the 2000 election. There were many leaders of the black community who came before the Senate to request audience, and anyone--Al Gore included--could have stepped forward to grant it. Noone did. Not even Al Gore. Kerry promised he would not remain quiet if there was election fraud. Look into what happened in Ohio, where voting locations in swing districts were shut down by the FBI. More people voted for George Bush than were registered voters in certain districts. Some districts registered negative votes for Kerry. Not a motherfucking peep from that ketchup loving traitor to his people.
The only thing I can conclude with the admittedly spare rationality that the good (non-Judeo Christian) lord has bestowed upon me is that we were put on as a country by the most elaborate scam artists in the world, and Al Gore and John Kerry were merely shills for the Republican party.
How can you fucking lose to a turd sandwich? Honestly. Of all the Democrats, the Democratic party refused to pick anyone with any testicles. Hillary has more testicles than those guys. Though I don't really trust that snizz, either, because she won't tell us what the fuck her plans are in regards to shooting foreigners. Way to inspire confidence.
The proof is in the pudding. The elections were NOT hacked, because it's not hacking if you have a password.
So the Times accidentally undercharged them, then gets to call up several weeks later and demand the rest of the money? MoveOn.org should have done what I do in cases like this: Send them a bill for additional handling and paperwork for the sum that they're requesting.
Since when do you get to charge someone one amount, deliver the product, and AFTER the fact say, "By the way, we messed up, and you owe us twice as much?" Is this just a case of liberals not being able to stand their ground again? What the hell is wrong with these people that they can't just say that the transaction has taken place, and there's no remedy? I mean, I understand the NY Times going after the money to protect their journalistic credibility, but MoveOn should've thumbed their nose at them, based solely upon the fact that that's not how business works.
*high five*
I'll save GP some time:
Dumbed-down is not the same as less complex. Dumbed-down is not the opposite of complex. Dumbed down means 'Made More Stupider' whereas less complex means 'not quite so intricate.' GP was indicating this point, and stating that it had plenty of artistic and stylistic merit in its own right. Doom is not Risk dumbed-down. Doom is Doom. Risk is Risk.
Dude, that intro sequence is like 30 minutes the first time through. And anyway, SS2 is definitely one of the best games of all time. I'm sorry it frustrated you so much.
Given the choice between friends and System Shock 2, I would probably go with friends. Probably.
Excellent post. I came off as a little more anti-patent than I actually am. I think the current patent system is ridiculous. I think that patenting methods is completely stupid, because the way our brains function dictates the 'best' way of displaying something. Patenting a playlist view is like patenting an input system that can be operated by people with 4 fingers and an opposable thumb on each hand.
But I do think they CAN be beneficial. Just make the term shorter, and clarify all the stuff surrounding technology. And shoot Dick Cheney in the face with birdshot, just in case that helps.
"In the current patent system, the so-called "inventors", if they're too puny to defend their patents in an expensive long-term legal struggle, well they can meet with the established companies have them steal your invention."
Fixed that for ya.
Someone who will have saves millions of dollars on the R&D of previous companies. In fact, the previous company you're talking about got to save millions of dollars on R&D, too, because they didn't have to spend 3 years coming up with a new way to get to where the original patent holder is already without infringing.
The fundamental difference between you and GP is that you think that people should have some sort of entitlement because they have an idea, and GP doesn't, necessarily. There's a lot that goes into being valuable to society. For example:
I have Idea, and want to get it to market. However, I am terrible at implementing Idea. Idea is a great great idea, but my product is not. OtherCo comes by and sees my shitty product on the market, and thinks they can do better. So they take Idea and use their own ideas to create GoodIdea. GoodIdea is a good product, whereas my product is crap. I start seeing losses in sales, because GoodIdea just makes more sense then Idea. So I take GoodIdea, and add a couple things that I learned while supporting Idea, and come up with VeryGoodIdea.
In the above model creates 2 good products, starting from one good idea that turned out to be a bad product. If my original idea had been really good, I could have coasted on it for a long long time, but it wasn't, so I couldn't.
Where's the crime?
And I, as a graduate of String State, am inventing 7 new dimensions to account for humor.
they're using the same logic that they use to set the penalty for one hit of acid to 20 years in prison, irreducible: That it's 'child abuse' because a child might get his hands on it.
Not if I eat it first, he won't. And it's a purely hypothetical argument, which leads me to ask: When did we start prosecuting people for hypothetical crimes?
I agree, but I still think that in a fair system, paying what you would owe, plus a percentage of your annual salary would make a lot of sense. like 10%, and like I said, your kids can eat meat less often, or 20%, they also don't get to see movies for a year, or 30%, and bye bye cable (which I think would be a good thing anyway). Not that any of those changes would compensate.
The thing that gets me is that these big corporations are prosecuting based on theoretical numbers, and yet they still somehow get on the order of $10k per song. It's entirely theoretical. For example, I downloaded Hit Me Baby One More Time once. I am not going to buy the CD. The song was worth about $.30 to me in enjoyment, and if I could send them $.30 to have it, maybe I would. But now when I purchase a CD, I'm breaking the law by putting it on my MP3 player, I'm breaking the law by burning a mix CD for someone (which is fucking stupid, I'm sorry. It's free advertising). In Spanish, a CD player is called a reproductor de CDs, which means reproducer. There is a fine, imaginary line between copying and playing back to begin with, and they're edging me back into a corner. If they had their way, you'd have to pay for multiperson licenses if you wanted your friends to listen to it.
The RIAA is collecting royalties from online radio stations that play indpendent artists' songs, and they say that if the artist wants their royalties, they just have to contact the RIAA. Fucking BAH! I don't want to be associated with the RIAA. How do I release my music under a license that is free from abuse by the RIAA? Do they own copyright, and get to decide what that means?
So, to summarize:
1. I hate the RIAA
2. Anything the RIAA does can and will be used against them in a court of my mind
3. I will infringe on an artist's copyright, and they send them the $0.10 they would've gotten from my CD purchase from the RIAA
4. The RIAA has built a house made of lies, corruption, and hatred for their customers, so I refuse to be one of their customers
5. If the RIAA has a where the sun don't shine, I would appreciate them sticking it there
grew up in mexico, sorry about the american legal system faux pas.
I appreciate you clarifying this for my benefit and the benefit of others, however, I wasn't trying to be accurate. I'm sure she was informed by many many people that she'd broken the law before the plaintiff got a good look at her.
I'm implying that you'd have to be a fogie to believe that watching the new Dr. Who episodes was necessary to geekdom. As wonderful as Dr. Who is, I don't think that just because I'm a geek, I should watch every episode of a remake of an old television show.
You can pry my geek badge from my cold dead fingers, just like I got my fogie badge.
I think she was probably informed by the prosecution that she had broken the law. But I could be wrong. Those RIAA lawyers are wacky.
If I'm ever on a jury and I disagree with the spectrum for something like the 'theft' of 'intellectual property,' I'm going with not guilty. I don't think it's fair to charge 220,000 for 25 songs, which works out in the neighborhood of $9,000 per song. Let's just pretend she got songs from 25 different CDs, and that the CDs are $20 apiece. That's only $500 that she could have possibly ACTUALLY stolen. In theory. How about we then fine her half a year's salary, say, ohhhhh $15k, and her kids have to eat ramen, don't get vitamins, and get to go to community college on pell grants. now THAT'S reasonable.
$220k? Not fucking reasonable. At a dollar per song, that's 220,000 people that downloaded it from her. What the fuck? This did not happen. I personally object to the whole thing based on the RIAA's:
1. 100-year reputation of treating artists and consumers like shit
2. argument that copyright infringement is theft, when last time I checked, theft was measured by the material loss of the victim.
3. everything else. I'm getting tired.
-Nathan
Not according to PBS...
I think he might be saying that time is a dimension and math is not, so your reductive snarky comment wasn't helpful, kind, or true. So you shouldn't have said it, according to Socrates.
But then he's dead, so what does he know?
I'm keeping my geek badge, but you can have this fogie badge I lifted off of a dying Netware engineer.