I live in DC. We get three electoral votes for president, but since we are overwhelmingly democratic, our general election vote always goes to the democrat. Our primary is after super Tuesday, at which point there is usually a clear "winner" for the democratic nominee.
My political friends from both camps assure me that super Tuesday is NOT going to seal the democratic nomination one way or another. Unlike the general election, delegates are not assigned all to one candidate based on the state total (for the democrats, anyway. Republican rules are different). The exact formula varies by state, but the delegate assignment is roughly proportional to the number of votes.
Personally, I'm leaning towards Obama myself. He seems principled and energetic, and I like his principles. Clinton seems a bit more cynical. I think he'd have a better chance against McCain. McCain won't bring out the republican base; Hillary Clinton will.
Policy wise, though, I think they're similar enough that I wouldn't mind either of them in the white house.
Well, my parent comment has had quite a ride, mod-wise. Initially it went up to 4, insightful. Then it got a flamebait mod, then a BUNCH of overrated mods, then another flamebait, so it's down to 0. And 49 responses so far, not counting this one.
Somehow the taunting is pretty fundamental to the way people are reacting to the story. Perhaps it's the desire to see an accident in terms of exceptional circumstances that don't apply to us. Perhaps it's a revenge fantasy for every asshole who made life a little more unpleasant. Perhaps, in some removed way, people see it as a cartoon rather than a real, bloody death. But, somehow, people DO care that this guy died, and the circumstances of the taunting profoundly color people's reaction.
I feel sorry for this guy's family. I feel sorry for the tiger.
I guess it boils down to a question of what is being mitigated. We agree that the zoo was at fault. Also, everyone probably agrees that the tiger was blameless, and exhibiting normal, expected tiger behavior.
What people feels it mitigates is not any sort of legal liability. What it mitigates is our own personal sense of injustice in the situation. There's a certain wink and nod "aren't you glad this asshole died?". There are plenty of examples in this thread of people saying just that without the wink and the nod, and the constant reference to taunting certainly encourages that.
The question we should be asking ourselves is whether we are happy that someone who taunted a tiger died. If we are, we ought be be asking why.
I know someone whose ex wanted to get her mail, so he filled out a mail forwarding card and forged the signature. It's not hard to do. They'll forward to anywhere in the country based on a little slip of paper.
this probably is best for the quality employees who always find themselves overcommitted and working hard
I have to disagree. The best employees may be the one who are smart, effective, and efficient, and can get their work done in forty hours. They'll get screwed.
The problem is that there are some jobs where time spent is the most important metric. Working the help desk, for example, or being a cashier. More productive employees (in theory) should make a better hourly wage, but there's a pretty close correlation between time spent and work accomplished. However, that's not the guideline for what makes an "exempt" employee. That has more to do with issues of self directedness. If the boss says "this week your setting up these servers", your probably not an exempt employee However, some people might take 8 hours, some might take all week. In that kind of work, the difference in efficiency between people can be enormous. It's a lot less if you're delivering packages.
If IBM hired these people with the understanding that this would be a forty hour a week job with "occasional" overtime, than this is an admission that they lied. Which stinks. It also smacks as a power play against people who complained. Which also stinks. My sympathies to everyone affected by this - I'd be mighty pissed if it was me.
This joke is now officially dead - computers are now so ubiquitous that the phrase "worked it out with a pencil" is no longer used. Ask any eight year old what it means.
Still, it was very funny when I was a kid... looooong ago....
I use print screen quite a bit at work for documentation - CTRL-ALT-Print Screen puts a bitmap of the screen into the paste buffer on Windows. It's pretty handy, actually.
You're missing the psychology of the situation. He wanted everyone in the company in a complete panic at once, so they would be really sorry they laid off poor old Andy Lin. It wasn't the damage, it was the psychological effect he was looking for.
'She [Mileva, his future wife] in turn, writing to a friend, bewailed "the misfortune of Albert not finding a post... You know that my sweetheart has a sharp tongue and moreover he's a Jew"'
60 mpg is very good, of course, but if you are talking about doubling the number of cars in the world, even at 60mpg, the CO2 and oil market impact is going to be pretty ugly.
Slashdot Mirror
Interestingly, giving DC congressional representation can be done with an act of congress, not a constitutional amendment. I'm not sure why.
It's a ploy by the slashdot editors. By omitting Ron Paul, they ensure he's the only one people will talk about.
My political friends from both camps assure me that super Tuesday is NOT going to seal the democratic nomination one way or another. Unlike the general election, delegates are not assigned all to one candidate based on the state total (for the democrats, anyway. Republican rules are different). The exact formula varies by state, but the delegate assignment is roughly proportional to the number of votes.
Personally, I'm leaning towards Obama myself. He seems principled and energetic, and I like his principles. Clinton seems a bit more cynical. I think he'd have a better chance against McCain. McCain won't bring out the republican base; Hillary Clinton will.
Policy wise, though, I think they're similar enough that I wouldn't mind either of them in the white house.
For the curious, the final mods on the ggp post are:
Insightful +1
Insightful +1
Flamebait -1
Underrated +1
Overrated -1
Insightful +1
Overrated -1
Insightful +1
Overrated -1
Overrated -1
Overrated -1
Insightful +1
Overrated -1
Leaving it at Flamebait, 0
Somehow the taunting is pretty fundamental to the way people are reacting to the story. Perhaps it's the desire to see an accident in terms of exceptional circumstances that don't apply to us. Perhaps it's a revenge fantasy for every asshole who made life a little more unpleasant. Perhaps, in some removed way, people see it as a cartoon rather than a real, bloody death. But, somehow, people DO care that this guy died, and the circumstances of the taunting profoundly color people's reaction.
I feel sorry for this guy's family. I feel sorry for the tiger.
Hmm.
if you don't pay these guys on time.
15% of the google codebase consitutes a "small user base"?
I guess it boils down to a question of what is being mitigated. We agree that the zoo was at fault. Also, everyone probably agrees that the tiger was blameless, and exhibiting normal, expected tiger behavior.
What people feels it mitigates is not any sort of legal liability. What it mitigates is our own personal sense of injustice in the situation. There's a certain wink and nod "aren't you glad this asshole died?". There are plenty of examples in this thread of people saying just that without the wink and the nod, and the constant reference to taunting certainly encourages that.
The question we should be asking ourselves is whether we are happy that someone who taunted a tiger died. If we are, we ought be be asking why.
Sure, if I saw a guy taunting animals at the zoo I'd think he was a complete jerk. If it was really out of hand, I'd call security to arrest the guy.
But it's not something he deserved to die for.
They actually kept the forged card as some leverage in their future dealings with the ex.
I know someone whose ex wanted to get her mail, so he filled out a mail forwarding card and forged the signature. It's not hard to do. They'll forward to anywhere in the country based on a little slip of paper.
I have to disagree. The best employees may be the one who are smart, effective, and efficient, and can get their work done in forty hours. They'll get screwed.
The problem is that there are some jobs where time spent is the most important metric. Working the help desk, for example, or being a cashier. More productive employees (in theory) should make a better hourly wage, but there's a pretty close correlation between time spent and work accomplished. However, that's not the guideline for what makes an "exempt" employee. That has more to do with issues of self directedness. If the boss says "this week your setting up these servers", your probably not an exempt employee However, some people might take 8 hours, some might take all week. In that kind of work, the difference in efficiency between people can be enormous. It's a lot less if you're delivering packages.
If IBM hired these people with the understanding that this would be a forty hour a week job with "occasional" overtime, than this is an admission that they lied. Which stinks. It also smacks as a power play against people who complained. Which also stinks. My sympathies to everyone affected by this - I'd be mighty pissed if it was me.
Still, it was very funny when I was a kid... looooong ago....
THAT'S funny!
In D.C., a lot of places now card EVERYONE. I've been carded in a few restaurants. I'm pretty sure no one would think I was anywhere NEAR 21.
At least then I'll have health care!
I use print screen quite a bit at work for documentation - CTRL-ALT-Print Screen puts a bitmap of the screen into the paste buffer on Windows. It's pretty handy, actually.
Who does that?
You're missing the psychology of the situation. He wanted everyone in the company in a complete panic at once, so they would be really sorry they laid off poor old Andy Lin. It wasn't the damage, it was the psychological effect he was looking for.
Pg 87, Albert Einstein, by Albrecht Folsing
The combination of being "pushy" and a jew at that time was a bad one for getting hired.
If it wasn't double blind, the results would be meaningless.
Actually, "exposed to nothing, but neither the subject nor the test administrator can tell"
Of course, stainless steel is non-magnetic.