But presumably it's still less than $128/hr, which makes the change worth it. Although personally I'm wondering why they're pushing for making these folks "temporary". As far as I'm concerned they should just hire them as state employees and be done with it.
Unless, of course, there's a lot of efficiency coming from each of the contracting organizations having a separate sales, finance, and management team scurrying around trying to direct state money to their company.
While there's no such thing as perfect security, there is definitely security that is about 20 times harder to penetrate than your typical bank website. Either that, or the various government spy agencies such as the NSA are in real trouble. Do those organizations get beaten at their own game? Absolutely. But it's a rare occurrence at best.
What I think you meant to say was "There's no security good enough to deter most criminal organizations available at a price that companies are willing to pay."
'By hiding its offshoring, IBM is doing a disservice to America — through omission the company is providing misleading labor market signals and information to policy makers.'
And if for some reason the big X doesn't work, every PC and monitor is built with a large button on the front that makes anything offensive on the screen completely disappear.
Remember that sexism, by definition, can only be against women and that it's impossible for women to be sexist against men. Once you understand the standard feminist definition of sexism, things should make a lot more sense, whether you agree with it or not.
OK, some dipship female supremecist who calls herself a feminist makes a boneheaded definition for sexism on her blog, and you paint all feminists with that brush?
Both of you are wrong to a degree. Not all feminists think that it's impossible for women to be sexist against men. To imply that the feminist writing that particular blog is outside what is considered part of feminist thought is also incorrect though.
There are feminists who do define sexism as sexism against women, just like there are feminists who argue that it is impossible for women to rape men. As far as I've been able to tell, those sorts of positions are most common among feminists who really got involved in feminism 40-60 years ago when sexism against women and rape of women were significantly more socially acceptable than they are today, but I've definitely heard it from younger feminists as well.
An example of where this comes into play: most feminist groups support efforts to ensure women can volunteer for the military and take on any role (including combat infantry). But many of these same groups are not at all interested in ensuring that the legal requirement to register for the draft is extended to include women or eliminated for men.
In short, while it's wrong to paint all feminists as being equivalent to Valerie Solanis, it's also wrong to paint all feminists as being willing to acknowledge and oppose discrimination against men.
And I write this as a guy who grew up reading Ms and books by the Boston Women's Health Collective, and took Women's Studies courses in college.
Here's an artistic counterargument: musicians should be in control of the artistic presentation of their work.
Beethoven's symphonies have separate movements, but they're played together for a reason. The pieces fit together, and while they're wonderful in their own right they were put together very intentionally. Same with Wagner's operas. And the same goes with Pink Floyd. Now, Beethoven and Wagner don't have contracts that prevent people from butchering their work by playing only part of it, but Pink Floyd does and is right to use it.
Really, as a musician and composer I'd have a real problem with people playing only part of a piece. These things are often structured so that to play only the most popular part is to miss the whole point. There are compositions will spend most of the piece setting up just one astoundingly wonderful musical moment just a bit before the end of the work. That our current 1-3-minutes-or-less culture can't handle that is somebody else's problem, not mine.
IMHO, Reaganomics works only in a country where manufacturing is a strong industry (where the workers of the nation are actually needed); sadly, the USA no longer significantly 'makes' anything.
Except that there's no evidence it works there either. There's a lot of reason to think that the whole trickle-down theory was created to accomplish two things:
1. Tax cuts and other benefits for rich political supporters.
2. Reduction of federal tax revenues to the point where the federal government can no longer function (Grover Norquist's "drown it in a bathtub").
I've attended talks by Arthur Laffer (one of the guys who came up with trickle-down theory), and determined after a little while that it was a really superbly designed pile of BS.
I was more concerned that CowboyNeal would win in a landslide, due to it being the none-of-the-above option. Of course, this whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
It depends: Did you do the same thing in mortgage banking a couple of years ago?
And you've learned some important lessons about investing, like: 1. Don't trust hype. 2. No, really, don't trust hype. 3. If you invest on momentum, you've probably already missed the boat. 4. Profitable companies are better investments than unprofitable companies for a reason. 5. Don't be afraid to be conservative. You might not make as much as the folks who risk a lot, but you're much more likely to hang onto your cash.
Some of the real ways to deal with illegal immigration from Latin America to the United States: - Prosecute employers who knowingly employ illegal immigrants. For example, the INS will sometimes raid a factory and round up a few hundred illegal immigrants. But the factory owner or manager, who either is a complete moron or knows what's going on, won't even get a slap on the wrist. - Enforce minimum wage laws. This would probably include a program that makes it so that illegal immigrants can turn in their employers who are paying less than minimum wage without risking deportation. In fact, you might even go so far as to create a reward for doing so. This would reduce the incentive to hire illegal immigrants rather than US citizens. - Work with Mexico to improve wages, economy, and working conditions there, to reduce the incentive to emigrate. - Make it easier to enter the country legally to work. Think an Ellis Island or two along the border. - Do what George W Bush suggested (and this was one of the few issues I agreed with him on) and create a way for illegal immigrants already here to obtain legal status. Otherwise, even if new immigration was completely stopped, we'd still have millions of folks already in the US to concern ourselves with.
But those all would be ways of actually solving the problem, which nobody really wants to do. Business interests want to look the other way to ensure access to cheap largely captive immigrant labor. Unions definitely want to look the other way, because they see immigrants as a potential part of their base. Democrats don't want to solve this, because the children of Mexican immigrants tend to be Democrats. Republicans don't want to solve this because it helps them stoke racist fears about Hispanic folks as well as helps their business buddies. The police and INS definitely don't want to solve the problem, because having lots of illegal immigration gives them an excuse to harass just about anyone who looks Hispanic. Instead, what we actually do is a system of more-or-less looking the other way, but occasionally sending in the INS to deport a few hundred people to placate the "They took our jobs!" crowd.
Same problem as the hole-in-the-ground outhouse: no fertilizer.
Your mistake is thinking that the goal is only to get the shit away from your home as quickly as possible with minimum effort. It's not: the other goal is to turn that shit into something useful.
By using a bucket, he can easily transport the manure to a compost pile, where it can become something useful. If you build a simple hole-in-the-ground outhouse, you don't get the fertilizer. If you build a composting outhouse (which is a good solution when you have a lot of people, especially if they're squeamish about it), you eventually have to shovel out the contents of said outhouse.
And yes, I say this as someone who's worked on each of these systems.
First, I want you to write a work that tops TAOCP. Or at the very least show your check from Knuth for finding an error. Oh, wait, I highly doubt you've done either. It can be how you can express your imagination in ways that are beyond TAOCP if you like.
Next, write some software at least as useful as TeX.
Actually, while both Medicare and Medicaid are pretty darn good, the VA actually beats both of them in terms of bang per buck. And they're by far the least privatized of the federally funded plans.
This seems to be a case of "like father, like son": Rupert Murdoch never had any problems with the idea of saying outrageous lies in order to strengthen his political position in order to strengthen his bank balance. Never mind that what James says is absolute bollocks, concentrate on what he's actually trying to accomplish, namely weakening the BBC in favor of his own publications.
The BBC is a truly fine institution, one that shows the potential of public broadcasting. The Murdoch family's, on the other hand, is most definitely not. For instance, the Wall Street Journal has gone dramatically downhill on the quality of its news reporting since News Corp took it over.
There's a rather large group of citizens that should in fact never talk to cops, namely people who are already criminals in the eyes of the police. For instance, I as a relatively clean-cut white guy from a fairly nice neighborhood can talk to police to report a crime and be reasonably assured as to my safety. A black guy from the projects, on the other hand, does not have that luxury.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, at least now I'm not the only one staring at the sun.
But presumably it's still less than $128/hr, which makes the change worth it. Although personally I'm wondering why they're pushing for making these folks "temporary". As far as I'm concerned they should just hire them as state employees and be done with it.
Unless, of course, there's a lot of efficiency coming from each of the contracting organizations having a separate sales, finance, and management team scurrying around trying to direct state money to their company.
While there's no such thing as perfect security, there is definitely security that is about 20 times harder to penetrate than your typical bank website. Either that, or the various government spy agencies such as the NSA are in real trouble. Do those organizations get beaten at their own game? Absolutely. But it's a rare occurrence at best.
What I think you meant to say was "There's no security good enough to deter most criminal organizations available at a price that companies are willing to pay."
'By hiding its offshoring, IBM is doing a disservice to America — through omission the company is providing misleading labor market signals and information to policy makers.'
To quote Dick Cheney, "So?"
And if for some reason the big X doesn't work, every PC and monitor is built with a large button on the front that makes anything offensive on the screen completely disappear.
Remember that sexism, by definition, can only be against women and that it's impossible for women to be sexist against men. Once you understand the standard feminist definition of sexism, things should make a lot more sense, whether you agree with it or not.
OK, some dipship female supremecist who calls herself a feminist makes a boneheaded definition for sexism on her blog, and you paint all feminists with that brush?
Both of you are wrong to a degree. Not all feminists think that it's impossible for women to be sexist against men. To imply that the feminist writing that particular blog is outside what is considered part of feminist thought is also incorrect though.
There are feminists who do define sexism as sexism against women, just like there are feminists who argue that it is impossible for women to rape men. As far as I've been able to tell, those sorts of positions are most common among feminists who really got involved in feminism 40-60 years ago when sexism against women and rape of women were significantly more socially acceptable than they are today, but I've definitely heard it from younger feminists as well.
An example of where this comes into play: most feminist groups support efforts to ensure women can volunteer for the military and take on any role (including combat infantry). But many of these same groups are not at all interested in ensuring that the legal requirement to register for the draft is extended to include women or eliminated for men.
In short, while it's wrong to paint all feminists as being equivalent to Valerie Solanis, it's also wrong to paint all feminists as being willing to acknowledge and oppose discrimination against men.
And I write this as a guy who grew up reading Ms and books by the Boston Women's Health Collective, and took Women's Studies courses in college.
Don't ask me. I'm a doctor, not a web designer!
Here's an artistic counterargument: musicians should be in control of the artistic presentation of their work.
Beethoven's symphonies have separate movements, but they're played together for a reason. The pieces fit together, and while they're wonderful in their own right they were put together very intentionally. Same with Wagner's operas. And the same goes with Pink Floyd. Now, Beethoven and Wagner don't have contracts that prevent people from butchering their work by playing only part of it, but Pink Floyd does and is right to use it.
Really, as a musician and composer I'd have a real problem with people playing only part of a piece. These things are often structured so that to play only the most popular part is to miss the whole point. There are compositions will spend most of the piece setting up just one astoundingly wonderful musical moment just a bit before the end of the work. That our current 1-3-minutes-or-less culture can't handle that is somebody else's problem, not mine.
Well, of course. Jack Thompson says so!
IMHO, Reaganomics works only in a country where manufacturing is a strong industry (where the workers of the nation are actually needed); sadly, the USA no longer significantly 'makes' anything.
Except that there's no evidence it works there either. There's a lot of reason to think that the whole trickle-down theory was created to accomplish two things:
1. Tax cuts and other benefits for rich political supporters.
2. Reduction of federal tax revenues to the point where the federal government can no longer function (Grover Norquist's "drown it in a bathtub").
I've attended talks by Arthur Laffer (one of the guys who came up with trickle-down theory), and determined after a little while that it was a really superbly designed pile of BS.
Like all eminently quotable people, Dijkstra tended to hyperbole and oversimplification.
Then the obvious conclusion is that all eminently quotable people should be ignored completely.
I was more concerned that CowboyNeal would win in a landslide, due to it being the none-of-the-above option. Of course, this whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
It depends: Did you do the same thing in mortgage banking a couple of years ago?
And you've learned some important lessons about investing, like:
1. Don't trust hype.
2. No, really, don't trust hype.
3. If you invest on momentum, you've probably already missed the boat.
4. Profitable companies are better investments than unprofitable companies for a reason.
5. Don't be afraid to be conservative. You might not make as much as the folks who risk a lot, but you're much more likely to hang onto your cash.
Well, it is intended to serve the same purpose, namely as a requirement to engage in any sort of commerce.
Woodie Guthrie said it best:
"Yes, as through this world I've wandered
I've seen lots of funny men;
Some will rob you with a six-gun,
And some with a fountain pen."
Some of the real ways to deal with illegal immigration from Latin America to the United States:
- Prosecute employers who knowingly employ illegal immigrants. For example, the INS will sometimes raid a factory and round up a few hundred illegal immigrants. But the factory owner or manager, who either is a complete moron or knows what's going on, won't even get a slap on the wrist.
- Enforce minimum wage laws. This would probably include a program that makes it so that illegal immigrants can turn in their employers who are paying less than minimum wage without risking deportation. In fact, you might even go so far as to create a reward for doing so. This would reduce the incentive to hire illegal immigrants rather than US citizens.
- Work with Mexico to improve wages, economy, and working conditions there, to reduce the incentive to emigrate.
- Make it easier to enter the country legally to work. Think an Ellis Island or two along the border.
- Do what George W Bush suggested (and this was one of the few issues I agreed with him on) and create a way for illegal immigrants already here to obtain legal status. Otherwise, even if new immigration was completely stopped, we'd still have millions of folks already in the US to concern ourselves with.
But those all would be ways of actually solving the problem, which nobody really wants to do. Business interests want to look the other way to ensure access to cheap largely captive immigrant labor. Unions definitely want to look the other way, because they see immigrants as a potential part of their base. Democrats don't want to solve this, because the children of Mexican immigrants tend to be Democrats. Republicans don't want to solve this because it helps them stoke racist fears about Hispanic folks as well as helps their business buddies. The police and INS definitely don't want to solve the problem, because having lots of illegal immigration gives them an excuse to harass just about anyone who looks Hispanic. Instead, what we actually do is a system of more-or-less looking the other way, but occasionally sending in the INS to deport a few hundred people to placate the "They took our jobs!" crowd.
Same problem as the hole-in-the-ground outhouse: no fertilizer.
Your mistake is thinking that the goal is only to get the shit away from your home as quickly as possible with minimum effort. It's not: the other goal is to turn that shit into something useful.
He could, but the bucket option is better.
By using a bucket, he can easily transport the manure to a compost pile, where it can become something useful. If you build a simple hole-in-the-ground outhouse, you don't get the fertilizer. If you build a composting outhouse (which is a good solution when you have a lot of people, especially if they're squeamish about it), you eventually have to shovel out the contents of said outhouse.
And yes, I say this as someone who's worked on each of these systems.
Not true. If it had been a giant wooden bunny, they'd have known that Lancelot, Galahad, and Bedevere had forgotten to get inside in the first place.
"Knuth had his day."
Wow. Just wow.
First, I want you to write a work that tops TAOCP. Or at the very least show your check from Knuth for finding an error. Oh, wait, I highly doubt you've done either. It can be how you can express your imagination in ways that are beyond TAOCP if you like.
Next, write some software at least as useful as TeX.
Then, and only then, can you call Knuth an idiot.
Actually, while both Medicare and Medicaid are pretty darn good, the VA actually beats both of them in terms of bang per buck. And they're by far the least privatized of the federally funded plans.
How do we know that Nickleback isn't one of these musical AI's?
Oh, right. These AIs are producing music that is receiving critical and fan acclaim.
Not true, not true. John Cage very carefully told his performer to not play. In 3 exactly timed movements, I might add. Without warning his audience.
This seems to be a case of "like father, like son": Rupert Murdoch never had any problems with the idea of saying outrageous lies in order to strengthen his political position in order to strengthen his bank balance. Never mind that what James says is absolute bollocks, concentrate on what he's actually trying to accomplish, namely weakening the BBC in favor of his own publications.
The BBC is a truly fine institution, one that shows the potential of public broadcasting. The Murdoch family's, on the other hand, is most definitely not. For instance, the Wall Street Journal has gone dramatically downhill on the quality of its news reporting since News Corp took it over.
There's a rather large group of citizens that should in fact never talk to cops, namely people who are already criminals in the eyes of the police. For instance, I as a relatively clean-cut white guy from a fairly nice neighborhood can talk to police to report a crime and be reasonably assured as to my safety. A black guy from the projects, on the other hand, does not have that luxury.